Hi, On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:11:08PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:53 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 02:17:34PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:16 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's why I wonder whether we should do the further lookup in > > nsmux, or just let the client continue. > > > > I'm not sure about the exact implications. I think one case where > > there would be a difference is when the client does a lookup with > > O_NOTRANS... And I'm not sure which variant behaves more correcly in > > this case. This needs some consideration. > > > > It somehow seems to me that doing the further lookup in nsmux will be > more appropriate... Well, it's really impossible to tell for sure without considering all corner cases... Intuitively, I'd also go for that variant first I think; but it can very well turn out later that the other is more logical... > The situation about starting the translator could possibly be handled > similarly to the way netfs_S_dir_lookup handles symlinks. In case a > symlink is found, whose target is stated as a relative path, > netfs_S_dir_lookup just prepends the already existent path with the > path to the target of the symlink. Not sure what you mean here. > It gives the client a retry notification only when the path to the > target of the symlink is absolute. Interesting. Why the distinction? > We should probably follow a similar idea, what do you think? I don't see the parallel yet, so I can't say... -antrik-
