[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zka2qxgs.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:28:19 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Malahal Naineni <malahal@...ibm.com>,
Steve Dickson <SteveD@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
hch@...radead.org, michael.brantley@...haw.com,
sven.breuner@...m.fraunhofer.de, chuck.lever@...cle.com,
pstaubach@...grid.com, trond.myklebust@....uio.no, rees@...ch.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3] vfs: make fstatat retry once on ESTALE errors from getattr call
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> writes:
>
> Ok, but again, that only applies to the lookup. It has no bearing on
> the subsequent operation. For instance, if we're doing:
>
> rename("/foo", "/bar");
>
> ...and another client is simultaneously doing:
>
> creat("/bar/baz", 0600);
>
> ...and we get back ESTALE from the server on the create because the
> "old" /bar got replaced after the lookup of it. Then it seems like
> returning -ENOENT would not be correct since there was never a time
> where /bar didn't exist...
It may not be "correct" according to some standard. But it's what Linux
does since day one on *all* filesystems. And probably other OS's that
have remotely scalable lookup routines.
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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