Return-Path: Received: from mail-vn0-f49.google.com ([209.85.216.49]:33558 "EHLO mail-vn0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030729AbbD1Ryc (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:54:32 -0400 Received: by vnbf1 with SMTP id f1so362832vnb.0 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:54:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150428174934.GA5887@lst.de> References: <1430139014-28013-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1430139014-28013-3-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150427203943.GI4083@fieldses.org> <20150427193008.1195d7dd@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20150428081456.GA21413@lst.de> <20150428160353.GN4083@fieldses.org> <20150428174934.GA5887@lst.de> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:54:31 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nfsd: fix pNFS return on close semantics From: Trond Myklebust To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Jeff Layton , Linux NFS Mailing List , Sachin Bhamare , Jeff Layton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:03:53PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > I'm ok with a cc to stable, but it's a bit borderline. Note that currently > > > you even applied my two patches to your 4.2 incoming queue, not even 4.1.. > > > > Yeah, those -incoming branches are random works-in-progress and will get > > rebased frequently, I'll move the other to for-4.1 and leave this one > > for 4.2. > > I would prefer if we could queue it up for 4.1 if possible. > The main reason why you may want these patches is that without return-on-close, you typically can end up with layouts being cached in knfsd without the filesystem being pinned. When you then unmount the filesystem... Cheers Trond