On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:09:31 +0200 (CEST) Erik Braun <[email protected]> wrote:
> I still have the problem described here: > > https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2014-June/040748.html > > Since neither AUFS nor OpenAFS change their behaviour (for good reasons, > no offense intended), I am forced to take action. Well, OpenAFS hasn't changed behavior because I haven't heard a reason for AUFS' behavior. I thought they could just lock the inode afterwards and that would avoid this, while still pretty clearly not introducing any other issues. That's what would sound most defensive/conservative to me. As far as I'm aware, neither openafs or aufs have a "good reason" for the behavior; we haven't been defending the existing behavior from each other or anything. As I mention in that linked message, the OpenAFS code maybe doesn't need to be like that. I could give you a patch that would avoid this issue, but I'm not sure if it causes any other problems; more time would need to be spent looking at it to be sure. (Or you can just try it and see what happens.) -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
