Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:18:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:18:34 -0500 Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.42.13]:18397 "EHLO nwkea-mail-1.sun.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:18:34 -0500 Message-Id: <200211201823.gAKINwqG113699@athyra.eng.sun.com> To: Juan Gomez cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no Subject: Re: [NFS] Re: Non-blocking lock requests during the grace period In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:06:11 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:23:58 -0800 From: Mike Kupfer Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1048 Lines: 24 >>>>> "Juan" == Juan Gomez writes: Juan> However, I feel it is odd to block a client for about one Juan> minutre when it issues "non-blocking" lock requests. But if the server goes down, the call can end up blocking for significantly longer than one minute anyway. Juan> I have seen that Solaris code does so but still feels odd Juan> and it may conflict with what most programmers expect Perhaps, but there are other expectations to keep in mind. In particular, when using NFS, the expectation (at least with hard mounts) is that when the server goes down, the application will simply wait until the server comes back. Your change would conflict with that expectation. Mike Kupfer mike.kupfer@sun.com Solaris File Sharing Speaking for myself, not for Sun. - 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/