lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: fcntl(F GETLEASE) semantics??
From
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:06:31AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> The NFSv4 spec explicitly states that
>
> When a client has a read open delegation, it may not make any changes
> to the contents or attributes of the file but it is assured that no
> other client may do so.

I don't understand the motivation for that requirement. As long as the
server sends write opens to the server, and doesn't try to cache them
locally, I don't see why it shouldn't be left up to the server whether
to allow writes on a read-delegated file.

> so NFSv4 cannot currently support this behaviour. If CIFS supports it,
> then maybe we have a case for going to the IETF and asking for a
> clarification to implement the same behaviour in NFSv4.

I think we could implement the correct NFSv4 delegation behaviour using
either lease semantic.

In any case, I haven't seen a real argument for reverting to the old
behaviour. I'd rather see an established standard, or a correct
real-world application that fails, not just some arbitrary test.

--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-11 16:23    [W:0.063 / U:0.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site