Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181]:37328 "EHLO mail-we0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754957AbaIQNkx (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:40:53 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id w62so1446716wes.40 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:40:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54198F61.6030704@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:40:49 +0300 From: Benny Halevy MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig , Boaz Harrosh CC: Peng Tao , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nfs41: change PNFS_LAYOUTRET_ON_SETATTR to only return on truncation to smaller size References: <1410491050-12858-1-git-send-email-tao.peng@primarydata.com> <541572BE.6000504@plexistor.com> <20140914164328.GA13467@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20140914164328.GA13467@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/14/2014 07:43 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 01:49:34PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> This is in violation of the pnf-objects draft. > Ithought that's an RFC by now? :) > >> We are obliged >> on chown to return layouts because of how the CAPs work, they >> have an embedded CAPs version which might increment when chown >> is changed, and also the credential keys. Which means that using >> the old layout will return an E_ACCESS from the OSD. > This is a good enough argument to just split the flags into one > for chown and one for truncate. Can you confirm that any other > setattr but a truncate to a smaller size or chown is fine with > your interpretation of RFC5664? > >> But.. >> >> I will agree with this patch. The above is true in an OSD >> protocol higher then NO_SEC. But none of the current implementation >> support anything other then NO_SEC. >> >> Second also with none-NO_SEC once a client does a chown the server >> needs to RECALL all other clients, so as Peng says above the Server >> should/can also recall from us. >> >> But some good sole needs to make an errata at the RFC draft so to >> explain. > I'd rather not violate the existing RFC unless we have a good reason for it > and an errata out. Having a flag to return on chown for the object layout > seems like the easier way to go forward. Ack Benny > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html