[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: How to provide proxy nodes

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: How to provide proxy nodes
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 01:13:05 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)


On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:11:08PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:53 PM, <olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 02:17:34PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:16 AM, <olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net> 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...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]