From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:35567 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753811Ab3BRUPN (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:15:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:15:02 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Jeff Layton Cc: NeilBrown , "Myklebust, Trond" , NFS , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: More fun with unmounting ESTALE directories. Message-ID: <20130218201502.GH4503@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20130212113813.427b8e05@notabene.brown> <20130214104230.013b7f71@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20130218132509.0ce779de@notabene.brown> <20130218184609.GF4503@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20130218144655.42b3f3e3@tlielax.poochiereds.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130218144655.42b3f3e3@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 02:46:55PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Ok, that helps. In that case, this patch might be a reasonable > forward-port of the one Neil sent earlier today. Note that this doesn't > really do anything for the umount problem, but it does seem to fix the > testcase for the problem I've been looking at. > > Thoughts? If we really go for "in this case revalidate should be weaker", we might as well introduce a separate method for it. As it is, we have several callers of ->d_revalidate(); this one (in complete_walk(), only for FS_REVAL_DOT filesystems) and ones in lookup_dcache() and lookup_fast() (in both cases we have and want the name to match). There are only two fs with FS_REVAL_DOT present - nfs and 9p. *IF* we want to make ->d_revalidate() on NFS behave differently in complete_walk() case, it would argue for just splitting the method in two, replacing FS_REVAL_DOT with "dentry has this method" and probably taking a good look at what 9p needs in the same case.