Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756443AbdIHPPy (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2017 11:15:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50201 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756174AbdIHPPw (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2017 11:15:52 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com A235980460 Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=dhowells@redhat.com Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <40aa347f-43eb-faf7-d6b7-dce6897f8a85@redhat.com> References: <40aa347f-43eb-faf7-d6b7-dce6897f8a85@redhat.com> <87bmnmrai9.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <1502430944.3822.1.camel@primarydata.com> <1502449309.4950.2.camel@redhat.com> <87zib3niqn.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <1502705432.4978.1.camel@redhat.com> <877ey4nsep.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <1502883253.4847.6.camel@redhat.com> <1e4665a6-30d6-c16a-760a-2892fb147760@redhat.com> <878tihmora.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <2e289bba-677b-cc50-5fa3-2d24d1f6b858@redhat.com> <87h8x1l9qp.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <733c15c2-ffbb-9a89-90ec-3ba1d574590e@redhat.com> <87r2w3jdn5.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <42ba2fa5-d756-d70f-370c-c2fe1a61c5bf@redhat.com> <87inhdk3rq.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> To: Ian Kent Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, NeilBrown , "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" , Andrew Morton , Jeff Layton , Trond Myklebust , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "mkoutny@suse.com" , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Subject: Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate??? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <32653.1504883749.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:15:49 +0100 Message-ID: <32654.1504883749@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Fri, 08 Sep 2017 15:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 388 Lines: 12 Ian Kent wrote: > So far only David commented about using ENOENT rather than EREMOTE. > > I prefer ENOENT for this case myself and he didn't object when I > explained why, David, any concerns? Not really - it just seems EREMOTE is a better fit since there is something there, we're just not allowed to follow it. This is different to a dangling symlink IMO. David