Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail01-md.ns.itscom.net ([175.177.155.111]:57029 "EHLO mail01-md.ns.itscom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751676AbaLRQ1Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:27:16 -0500 From: "J. R. Okajima" Subject: Re: [PATCH] dcache: return -ESTALE not -EBUSY on distributed fs race To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Al Viro , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton In-Reply-To: <20141218155838.GD18179@fieldses.org> References: <20141217195911.GF9617@fieldses.org> <20141217200153.GG9617@fieldses.org> <12689.1418917838@jrobl> <20141218155838.GD18179@fieldses.org> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 01:27:14 +0900 Message-ID: <13170.1418920034@jrobl> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "J. Bruce Fields": > Why do you think -EBUSY's the right error in the local filesystem case? This busy_or_stale() is another bandaid, based upon your patch, EBUSY --> ESTALE. Because the msg string of ESTALE is "Stale NFS file handle" on many systems, I don't think it a good idea to return it for local fs. If you think EIO is better than EBUSY you can change it to eio_or_stale(). If you think it is surely not happen on every local fs, then this inline function is not necessary. J. R. Okajima