Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:32773 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752829Ab1KMQpl (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:45:41 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:45:36 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: NeilBrown Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Trond Myklebust , Matthew Treinish , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/7] Volatile Filehandle Client-side Support Message-ID: <20111113164536.GC28574@fieldses.org> References: <1321052673-22171-1-git-send-email-treinish@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1321056809.8733.2.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20111112144953.GA3740@infradead.org> <20111113145400.6c7a9be3@notabene.brown> <20111113164240.GB28574@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20111113164240.GB28574@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:42:40AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 02:54:00PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > So if you know the filesystem will only return FHEXPIRED for filehandles > > belonging to files that cannot be renamed, then it is perfectly reasonable to > > repeat the name lookup to re-access the file after the server forgets about > > an old filehandle. The mount option is how you communicate this knowledge, > > because the RFC doesn't provide a way to communicate it. > > What about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5661#section-11.11 > STATUS4_FIXED? Also, could a re-looked-up file be considered sufficiently safe to use if all the attributes matched? (I guess not: inode numbers, change attributes, etc., could agree by coincidence, so it would never be completely reliable.) --b.