xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: nfs vs xfstests 193

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: nfs vs xfstests 193
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:44:04 -0500
Cc: Stanislav Kholmanskikh <stanislav.kholmanskikh@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Vasily Isaenko <vasily.isaenko@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Sachin S. Prabhu" <sprabhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131206180858.GA2803@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20131106115648.GA24804@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <52A1CF22.106@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131206180858.GA2803@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:08:58AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 05:20:34PM +0400, Stanislav Kholmanskikh wrote:
> > Just to make the behaviour more consistent between NFS and other
> > "local" file systems as It was done by
> > commit 
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/?id=0953e620de0538cbd081f1b45126f6098112a598
> 
> Seems like we got others in line with XFS behavior.

But, not having tested the behavior, it looks like fs/open.c has a
simlar !S_ISDIR() check.  Where's that behavior implemented?

> I'd prefer to have NFS follow this as well.

Huh.  Sachin, do you remember if there was any other motivation behind
that patch?

--b.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>