From: Wendy Cheng Subject: Re: lock reclaims outside grace period Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:45:07 -0500 Message-ID: <4817C113.2000603@gmail.com> References: <20080429215707.GF26468@fieldses.org> <1209507531.8321.11.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20080430000349.GA32692@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Trond Myklebust , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.204.228]:45861 "EHLO qb-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753810AbYD3ApO (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:45:14 -0400 Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id e11so243369qbe.15 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:45:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080430000349.GA32692@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 03:18:51PM -0700, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 17:57 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> >>> Current lockd code appears to reject regular locks done during the grace >>> period, but not reclaims that come outside of the grace period. >>> >>> (That's based on inspecting the code--I haven't run tests.) >>> >>> That seems like an obvious bug. (We're not giving the client any way to >>> determine whether conflicting locks might have been granted.) >>> >>> Can we fix it, or is there a chance that people have been depending on >>> this behavior? (Maybe for failing over to an already-active server??) >>> >> Sorry, but I really don't care if anyone has been relying on it: that is >> a _major_ bug and needs to be fixed ASAP. >> > > OK, good, I'll do some tests to confirm and then submit a patch. > I can't disagree - but do prepare people start to ask why after kernel version 2.6.x, they have to extend grace period to get NFS locking works :) ... -- Wendy