In-Reply-To: <1317071626.19951.8.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
References: <CA+55aFyd3QB-vfp9Vm6S6_YRCXO9pNE2YavYZhmO+5g6YfdERA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1316747758.3346.89.camel@perseus.themaw.net> <20110922134510.24683.14576.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <1316707443.3346.44.camel@perseus.themaw.net> <CA+55aFxGxv5DGAQcgn1avwUcW1xZVvz1VEajF6zT5HHiVEsJ2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1316709935.3346.48.camel@perseus.themaw.net> <20110922133529.6d3ea8de@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com>
 <20110922144453.6cf53a25@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> <1316719228.3968.14.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
 <CA+55aFxEAZG2dz3X44OUDqmqv8P-6AJ-eiKVBGfC5+=3C_c+1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430B480BD4@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
 <CA+55aFx9XbKV7xNR-Vs7NhyDE=vmX7Zr=U2YB=omvcae_ye9XQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <21772.1316774025@redhat.com> <1316788444.14812.10.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
 <29743.1316791138@redhat.com> <87hb43tf2g.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
 <1316827854.3346.154.camel@perseus.themaw.net> <CA+55aFwPEq5B_P0RtX+pBtGfTadzzS+3U=k=3XTjDw3soNhOdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110924073610.4b045189@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <CA+55aFxjFXbCKBZNfBuCOaiBHRQ=ZECnhqKxjPw9maPgyRLiDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1317013864.3187.81.camel@perseus.themaw.net> <CA+55aFzJnKCHtsiH-mZOwQgVt1ajPJQHWRYB_19eXEKaGRPD1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1317071626.19951.8.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:24:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzWCZQjWMcxg16yMUoLr-mEPuXzAFgv49LU4hCn+=rbwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: Suppress automount on [l]stat, [l]getxattr, etc.
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        gregkh@suse.de, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, leonardo.lists@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Trond Myklebust
<Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> wrote:
>
> LOOKUP_OPEN flags an open intent and will therefore have side-effects on
> NFSv4.

Yes, and the actual downside for that is exactly what?

If you are talking about the bind mount issue, then what is the
downside with saying "we want the same stronger consistency guarantees
as for a 'file open' operation"?

Especially since we know that the side effects of the LOOKUP_FOLLOW
approach are MUCH BIGGER, and have already caused real complaints from
actual real users.

In comparison with those real downsides, why the heck are people
complaining about LOOKUP_DIRECTORY or LOOKUP_OPEN?

Seriously.

Let me repeat: what are the ACTUAL REAL DOWNSIDES?

               Linus