Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6426 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751042Ab2DRPQZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:16:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:16:38 -0400 From: Jeff Layton To: Peter Staubach Cc: "Myklebust, Trond" , Bernd Schubert , Malahal Naineni , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "miklos@szeredi.hu" , "viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk" , "hch@infradead.org" , "michael.brantley@deshaw.com" , "sven.breuner@itwm.fraunhofer.de" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] vfs: make fstatat retry on ESTALE errors from getattr call Message-ID: <20120418111638.457f9a74@corrin.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: References: <1334316311-22331-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20120413150518.GA1987@us.ibm.com> <20120413114236.0e557e01@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <4F8B1B7B.3040304@itwm.fraunhofer.de> <20120416073655.7cdb90cf@corrin.poochiereds.net> <4F8C3036.2030702@itwm.fraunhofer.de> <20120416134642.1754cd3e@corrin.poochiereds.net> <1334604785.2879.23.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20120416154322.0d95e435@corrin.poochiereds.net> <1334607906.2879.36.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20120416190548.2463d1d0@corrin.poochiereds.net> <1334671736.2963.30.camel@lade.trondhjem.org.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:48:42 -0400 Peter Staubach wrote: > I don't think that the code ends up being all that complex, actually. I will have to dig out the patches that I had previously to look to see what they did. I am pretty sure that they handled all of these cases. I also had some tests which exercised the modified path based system calls and at least, at one point in time, they would run without returning ESTALE to the user level. > > Let me see what I can find. SteveD, you wouldn't have squirrelled away a copy of my stuff from Red Hat, would you? > > Thanx... > > ps > Yes, your original set was very comprehensive, AFAICT. I'm not sure if it'll apply to mainline well at this point, but I was definitely using it as a guideline for what to do here. The cover letter for the patchset that you sent out a few years ago had a testcase in it. I was planning to use that to test once I start broading this to other syscalls: https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/10/267 -- Jeff Layton