From: "Dr. J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: nfsd: Use vfs_fsync_range() in nfsd_commit Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:58:52 -0500 Message-ID: <20100129235852.GC30852@fieldses.org> References: <1264796353.3644.4.camel@localhost> <20100129205022.GA14449@infradead.org> <1264798623.3644.18.camel@localhost> <1264799906.3644.21.camel@localhost> <20100129212706.GA28361@infradead.org> <1264801151.3644.27.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:48058 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752645Ab0A2X6u (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:58:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1264801151.3644.27.camel@localhost> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 04:39:11PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 16:27 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > And not actually touched by your patch, but that is the reason to > > open/close the file if we don't actually do anything with it for an > > async export? > > I must admit that I was wondering about that too. I'm assuming that the > reason is to provide consistent behaviour w.r.t. access checks and > possibly also to ensure that NFSv4 delegations are revoked. Perhaps > Bruce could comment? Do delegations need to be revoked on commit? (And do we care about access checks?) We could do both without the need for an actual open, but I don't know that it matters much either way. --b.