On Fri, 12 Sept 2025 at 07:49, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > While we are at it, Miklos mentioned some plans for changing ->atomic_open() > calling conventions. Might be a good time to revisit that... Miklos, > could you give a braindump on those plans? [Cc: Bernd] What we want is ->atomic_open() being able to do an atomic revalidate + open (cached positive) case. This is the only case currently that can't be done with a single ATOMIC_OPEN request but needs two roundtrips to the server. The ->atomic_open() interface shouldn't need any changes, since it's already allowed to use a different dentry from the supplied one. Based on (flags & LOOKUP_OPEN) ->revalidate() needs to tell the caller that it's expecting the subsequent ->atomic_open() call to do the actual revalidation. The proposed interface for that was to add a D_REVALIDATE_ATOMIC = 2 constant to use as a return value in this case. Thanks, Miklos
