On Tue, 23 Sep 2014, Andrew Deason wrote:
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.
Thank you for the clarification. I'll tell you then, what the AUFS author thinks about changing the lock behaviour.
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.)
I really would appreciate it if you send me this patch. viele Grüße, Erik Braun _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
