Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:48:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:48:35 -0400 Received: from ECE.CMU.EDU ([128.2.236.200]:12694 "EHLO ece.cmu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:48:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:48:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Craig Soules To: Andi Kleen cc: Chris Wedgwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFS Client patch In-Reply-To: <20010710154135.A4603@gruyere.muc.suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Andi Kleen wrote: > Because to get that new cookie you would need another cookie; otherwise > you could violate the readdir guarantee that it'll never return files > twice. I cannot locate any such guarantee in the NFS spec... are you refering to another spec which applies? > BTW; the cookie issue is not an NFS only problem. It occurs on local > IO as well. Just consider rm -rf - reading directories and in parallel > deleting them (the original poster's file system would have surely > gotten that wrong). Another tricky case is telldir(). I don't believe that the behavior in this case is deterministic. If you have multiple people accessing a single file, reading and writing to it, there is no guarantee as to what the behavior is. The client should be able to handle any errors it creates for itself while doing this kind of parallel operation. Craig - 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/