Re: [PATCH] autofs4 needs to force fail return revalidate

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:

> 
> Also, did you consider broadening the ->d_revalidate() semantics?  It
> appears that all implementations return 0 or 1.  You could teach the VFS to
> also recognise and act upon a -ve return value, and do this trickery within
> the autofs d_revalidate(), perhaps?
> 

Now it occurs to me this is the only safe way to do this.
And a lot simpler.

Al, given this is such a heavily traveled piece of code, do you think 
it would be acceptable to change the semantics of revalidate in this way.

Ian

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

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] autofs4 needs to force fail return revalidate
    • From: Ian Kent <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] autofs4 needs to force fail return revalidate
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [autofs] [PATCH] autofs4 needs to force fail return revalidate
• Next by Date: Re: gcc-4.1.1 and kernel-2.4.32
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] autofs4 needs to force fail return revalidate
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] autofs4 needs to force fail return revalidate
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]