On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 10:44:55PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Sat Dec 30 2006 at 08:52:58 +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > i prefer:
> > 
> > 	if (cnp->cn_nameiop == DELETE)
> > 		docache = 0;
> 
> Yes, that's more sensible.  But why do we have both NOCACHE and the
> check here?  Seems like we could do DELETE || RENAME here and get rid
> of NOCACHE in the rename namei() calls, for consistency.
> 
> I committed the above, we can tweak it more later.  thanks

I was going to check in the DELETE || RENAME version,
but now that you point out the redundancy with NOCACHE,
I'd rather move to using only the explicit NOCACHE flag
and remove the implicit check on DELETE.  all this implicit stuff
makes this far harder to understand and makes the more common usage
of namei() (eg. just for opening a file) slower as well.
I'll leave this for after we fix the rest of the bugs, though.

-Chuck