Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:25:31 -0500
From: Matthew Treinish <treinish@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/7] Volatile Filehandle Client-side Support
Message-ID: <20111113182531.GB4084@Gelgoog.pok.ibm.com>
References: <1321052673-22171-1-git-send-email-treinish@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1321056809.8733.2.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
 <20111112144953.GA3740@infradead.org>
 <20111113145400.6c7a9be3@notabene.brown>
 <20111113164240.GB28574@fieldses.org>
 <20111113164536.GC28574@fieldses.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20111113164536.GC28574@fieldses.org>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:45:36AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 
> Also, could a re-looked-up file be considered sufficiently safe to use
> if all the attributes matched?
> 
> (I guess not: inode numbers, change attributes, etc., could agree by
> coincidence, so it would never be completely reliable.)
> 

We thought of doing something like that, but like you said it's not a 
guarantee. That was part of the reason why we went with the mount option.
By using it, the user will assume that whatever files the re-look-ups return
are safe/correct.

-Matt Treinish