Return-Path: Received: from mail-yx0-f191.google.com ([209.85.210.191]:41407 "EHLO mail-yx0-f191.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751642Ab0CIPWQ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:22:16 -0500 Received: by yxe29 with SMTP id 29so986110yxe.4 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:22:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20100309151053.GC21862@fieldses.org> References: <20100309014624.GF2999@fieldses.org> <20100309145354.GB21862@fieldses.org> <89c397151003090655h7f3465f2u36c60cfa0b580516@mail.gmail.com> <20100309151053.GC21862@fieldses.org> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:17:04 -0500 Message-ID: <89c397151003090717v7b744eb7i8c1c941f169e45e2@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: reboot recovery From: "William A. (Andy) Adamson" To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:10 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:55:52AM -0500, William A. (Andy) Adamson wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:53 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:46:04AM -0500, Andy Adamson wrote: >> >> >> >> RFC 5661 in section 18.51.3 >> >> >> >> ? ?Whenever a client establishes a new client ID and before it does the >> >> ? ?first non-reclaim operation that obtains a lock, it MUST send a >> >> ? ?RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to FALSE, even if there are no >> >> ? ?locks to reclaim. ?If non-reclaim locking operations are done before >> >> ? ?the RECLAIM_COMPLETE, an NFS4ERR_GRACE error will be returned. >> >> >> >> So there will never be a 'first OPEN' (except for an OPEN reclaim) >> >> without a RECLAIM_COMPLETE. >> > >> > There will be in the case of an entirely new client, or a client that >> > missed the grace period completely. >> >> No, the MUST above applies to both a new client/client that missed the >> grace period completely. In both cases the client is establishing a >> new client ID. > > Oog, sorry, obviously I can't read--I see what you mean now. > > I haven't seen any client send a RECLAIM_COMPLETE or any server demand > one yet, so do we all have this wrong? The latest Linux client does send a RECLAIM_COMPLETE after each EXCHANGE_ID. This change was part of the 'A' tasks for NFSv4.1. -->Andy > > Or was the above a mistake and they meant to say something like > "whenever a client *that previously held state* establishes a new client > ID...."? > > --b. >