From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53390 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755068Ab3BRXPI (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:15:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:14:50 +1100 From: NeilBrown To: Al Viro Cc: Jeff Layton , "Myklebust, Trond" , NFS , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: More fun with unmounting ESTALE directories. Message-ID: <20130219101450.42c1752c@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: <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> <20130218201502.GH4503@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/qkMxurlR7pPPJsoo4WgiOBB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --Sig_/qkMxurlR7pPPJsoo4WgiOBB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:15:02 +0000 Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 02:46:55PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > Thoughts? >=20 > If we really go for "in this case revalidate should be weaker", we might > as well introduce a separate method for it. >=20 > 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. Sounds good to me. Reminds me that we used to have an i_op->revalidate() method for revalidati= ng just the inode (not the dentry). It called nfs_revalidate_inode() for NFS. We lost it over a decade ago: commit cc41b90f8a9ad3cd85a39dd4fcc71f965a675b0e Author: Alexander Viro Date: Tue May 21 21:12:46 2002 -0700 [PATCH] kill ->i_op->revalidate() =20 kill ->i_op->revalidate() :-) (this doesn't help my umount problem though) NeilBrown --Sig_/qkMxurlR7pPPJsoo4WgiOBB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBUSK16jnsnt1WYoG5AQL9eQ//W8rmtREndS+fovoj5deApTfyIa/7KFgU kPqAucmfR5rZUjsRKnSjdMa+d6AH0Od6ww3vlBj0H5neqgN4BNNnxhUoQa9fA/u8 I4qBnpBhbsrctuLBDEbKlRXrcNCQvfGwaKY+Ha67a4OOkfyieSC9nkVhSn75XhSD Rs0mFl9eKlFeiyHtIUP/K3K6Q7cE85v6ynUeR7zEwlSoEVGAtiUpYX8o7j0kUviY s9gGbxURk8PV/+hS+YC3G1m0CBKQA1s9tzYv/b5Jx6Os8TU+YjUA6E9qMVjo10xc jIxWwuIwgEh/pjDJl14S9glugVDxrtMvsnzfON+S6I+T9Mo8VQN5a7As5mG1Hi8T kQY2ny2Oyus+Z4jZcPNFds0CdblHFH+EaYzCsCfIbIdbkpBDUOXMxUVbMFxRSmRA AGhyUoeSyOclGz/xR+IBs4aJy9Pjb2FoeymYzlOsie+FRWg+D8PC4WEoqJaIhaTw LJkADo/ZWEHzA7iN0Z3Pixmk/zAfVjIZTWlo1m01Xbqtv2XrLXZ/dOQtHjjEmG9J Y9lNx+PevB9MBZTPhG39pb4+lpmGq6vVH8HD0mB7vzy5vx8XrKu2lskrn9Y66VBh 8aJzo+pEtnK4QXuf1Bz8CNfpP4Hm/Otp1lEaItCVyoVPLyMTJ2n28QxvW8tLa7BW BakPY0NopH8= =JDtL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/qkMxurlR7pPPJsoo4WgiOBB--