From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65B829E09 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:44:19 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E129AC00C for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:44:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from fieldses.org (fieldses.org [174.143.236.118]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id B26F07i9qhEtGvn1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:44:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:44:04 -0500 Subject: Re: nfs vs xfstests 193 Message-ID: <20131206204404.GA12613@fieldses.org> References: <20131106115648.GA24804@infradead.org> <52A1CF22.106@oracle.com> <20131206180858.GA2803@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131206180858.GA2803@infradead.org> From: "J. Bruce Fields" List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Vasily Isaenko , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, "Sachin S. Prabhu" , Stanislav Kholmanskikh On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:08:58AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 05:20:34PM +0400, Stanislav Kholmanskikh wrote: > > Just to make the behaviour more consistent between NFS and other > > "local" file systems as It was done by > > commit https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/?id=0953e620de0538cbd081f1b45126f6098112a598 > > Seems like we got others in line with XFS behavior. But, not having tested the behavior, it looks like fs/open.c has a simlar !S_ISDIR() check. Where's that behavior implemented? > I'd prefer to have NFS follow this as well. Huh. Sachin, do you remember if there was any other motivation behind that patch? --b. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:34067 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751294Ab3LFUoS (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:44:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:44:04 -0500 To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Stanislav Kholmanskikh , xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Vasily Isaenko , "Sachin S. Prabhu" Subject: Re: nfs vs xfstests 193 Message-ID: <20131206204404.GA12613@fieldses.org> References: <20131106115648.GA24804@infradead.org> <52A1CF22.106@oracle.com> <20131206180858.GA2803@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20131206180858.GA2803@infradead.org> From: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:08:58AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 05:20:34PM +0400, Stanislav Kholmanskikh wrote: > > Just to make the behaviour more consistent between NFS and other > > "local" file systems as It was done by > > commit https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/?id=0953e620de0538cbd081f1b45126f6098112a598 > > Seems like we got others in line with XFS behavior. But, not having tested the behavior, it looks like fs/open.c has a simlar !S_ISDIR() check. Where's that behavior implemented? > I'd prefer to have NFS follow this as well. Huh. Sachin, do you remember if there was any other motivation behind that patch? --b.