lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.18-rc4-mm1
Date
Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:

> > The negative dentry wouldn't normally be a problem, even though it's
> > attached to its parent directory... except for the small matter that it's
> > subsequently listed in a directory read operation.
>
> Surely this dentry should also be unhashed at some point.
> Wouldn't that be a sensible result of the failed operation?

Why? The lookup op succeeded, so obviously there wasn't anything there,
right?

Note that nfs_lookup_revalidate() doesn't cause the dentry to be revalidated
because the mtime on the parent directory hasn't changed.

I'm considering having nfs_readdir_lookup() mark a negative dentry it
encounters as named in a directory listing for explicit revalidation, but I
can't call nfs_mark_for_revalidate() since I don't have an inode.

I think I'll need to add a dentry flag for this purpose.

David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-16 15:23    [W:0.210 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site