Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:35526 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752841Ab3KBOom (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:44:42 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:44:31 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Anna Schumaker , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] NFSD: Add WRITE_PLUS support for hole punches Message-ID: <20131102144431.GB26983@fieldses.org> References: <1382972247-1108-1-git-send-email-bjschuma@netapp.com> <1382972247-1108-4-git-send-email-bjschuma@netapp.com> <20131028214030.GO31322@fieldses.org> <526FAF30.3060502@netapp.com> <20131029130649.GA29606@fieldses.org> <20131102135409.GC18961@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20131102135409.GC18961@infradead.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 06:54:09AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 09:06:49AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > What I meant was--why are we doing a sync at all, instead of returning > > NFS_UNSTABLE and making the client commit? > > Did NFSv4.2 introduce a concept of unstable metadata operations? No, but I think WRITE_PLUS does have a stable/unstable bit so I think we could choose not to do the sync if that'd make sense. --b.