[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1319368474.7876.4.camel@perseus.themaw.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:14:34 +0800
From: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To: Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.falauto@...mile.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jeffrey Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CIFS: fix automount for DFS shares
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 13:09 +0200, Gerlando Falauto wrote:
> Automounting directories are now invalidated by .d_revalidate()
> so to be d_instantiate()d again with the right DCACHE_NEED_AUTOMOUNT
> flag
But why doesn't CIFS know this is a DFS inode the first time around, it
appears to do a truck load of work looking that stuff up?
>
> Signed-off-by: Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.falauto@...mile.com>
> ---
> fs/cifs/dir.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/dir.c b/fs/cifs/dir.c
> index 9ea65cf..67f54d3 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/dir.c
> @@ -637,8 +637,13 @@ cifs_d_revalidate(struct dentry *direntry, struct nameidata *nd)
> if (direntry->d_inode) {
> if (cifs_revalidate_dentry(direntry))
> return 0;
> - else
> + else {
> + /* We want automonting inodes to be
> + * considered invalid or so */
> + if (IS_AUTOMOUNT(direntry->d_inode))
> + return 0;
I'd be inclined to set DCACHE_NEED_AUTOMOUNT here but are we certain
that cifs_revalidate_dentry() will always return 0 for a DFS inode or at
least ones that don't yet have DCACHE_NEED_AUTOMOUNT set and why?
> return 1;
> + }
> }
>
> /*
--
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