From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] nfs41: New NFS4CLNT_RECLAIM_COMPLETE_PENDING state Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:11:50 -0500 Message-ID: <1260209510.32136.23.camel@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "Labiaga, Ricardo" Return-path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:28315 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964869AbZLGSLp convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:11:45 -0500 Received: from svlrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com (svlrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.57.115.30]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id nB7IBps5023864 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:11:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 09:51 -0800, Labiaga, Ricardo wrote: > On 12/7/09 6:47 AM, "Trond Myklebust" wrote: > > > Looking at the code, I'm not convinced that we need a separate > > 'RECLAIM_COMPLETE_PENDING' state. It should be pretty much identical to > > the existing NFS4CLNT_RECLAIM_REBOOT state. > > The only difference is that in the NFSv4.1 case we want to be able to > > call RECLAIM_COMPLETE even in the case where we have no state to > > reclaim. > > > > Yes, this would be the case if my interpretation of the spec is incorrect. I don't see how your interpretation changes anything w.r.t the question of whether we need a new state or not. You can still set NFS4CLNT_RECLAIM_REBOOT and get it to do the right thing... Trond