Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:59:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:59:32 -0500 Received: from mons.uio.no ([129.240.130.14]:48789 "EHLO mons.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:59:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15836.5498.109808.440533@charged.uio.no> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:06:34 +0100 To: Juan Gomez Cc: Mike Kupfer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [NFS] Re: Non-blocking lock requests during the grace period ===> unlock during grace period? In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no From: Trond Myklebust Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 992 Lines: 22 >>>>> " " == Juan Gomez writes: > OK, fair enough. I think I will withdraw my request to 'fix' > this. If Solaris and other falvors of Unix (i.e. Aix) behave > this way I think it would not be good to change just Linux. > The other minor change I proposed earlier was that we allow > unlock operations during the grace period, and this will be > useful in clustered NAS heads. What do you guys think about > such a change? Until the server knows that the client has finished re-establishing all state information, it should not accept any requests to modify that state. Unfortunately, the only way it has of knowing that the client is done is the grace period expiration... Cheers, Trond - 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/