Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:34533 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750989AbaCaUwu (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:52:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:52:44 -0400 From: Dr Fields James Bruce To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Idan Kedar , Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nfsd: Don't return NFS4ERR_RESTOREFH for NFSv4.1+ Message-ID: <20140331205244.GA20024@fieldses.org> References: <1396118619-12771-1-git-send-email-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> <1396118619-12771-2-git-send-email-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> <20140329193456.GE11085@fieldses.org> <54B21F4C-18EC-45B9-B89C-DD05A0922DDE@primarydata.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <54B21F4C-18EC-45B9-B89C-DD05A0922DDE@primarydata.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 04:01:15PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2014, at 15:49, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > > On Mar 29, 2014, at 15:34, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 02:43:39PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >>> RFC5661 obsoletes NFS4ERR_RESTOREFH in favour of NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE. > >> > >> Looks right. Any objection to just making this nfserr_restorefh in the > >> 4.0 case as well? Hard to imagine how that could cause a 4.0 client any > >> problem. > > > > You mean make both cases return nfserr_nofilehandle (as per RFC5661), right? So, I agree that most clients should handle that, but the problem is that RFC3530bis does not allow it. > > Either way, this is not a performance critical issue. Any time we get into this situation, it is because the client is utterly screwed up in the first place. Yeah. I don't really care much, applied. > The NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID is the critical one that really needs to be applied... Already applied, thanks. --b.