[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1157518718.3066.22.camel@raven.themaw.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:58:38 +0800
From: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, torvalds@...l.org,
steved@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cachefs@...hat.com, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Permit filesystem local caching and NFS superblock
sharing [try #13]
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 14:38 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
>
> > > Okay, I suppose. But that still doesn't seem to deal with the case of
> > > creating a directory on the client that then overlays a symlink on the
> > > server that you can't yet access.
> >
> > We're largely performing user space actions at this point.
> > Wouldn't the subsequent call to mount(8) catch that?
>
> Not if you've already caused the NFS filesystem to create a "dummy" dentry
> that's a directory because you couldn't see that what that name corresponds to
> on the server is actually a symlink.
Shouldn't stat tell me if this is a symlink?
>
> > > You may also get ENOENT because you stat a symlink, though you'll get EEXIST
> > > from mkdir, even if there's nothing at the far end.
> >
> > Don't think this is something I need to care about either.
> > I can't mount on a symlink so the error return would be the correct way
> > to deal with it.
>
> But you might have to transit a symlink to reach the mountpoint.
Mmmm ... thinking ....
Ian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists