Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:38432 "EHLO mail-it0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752578AbdCPSFu (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:05:50 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m27so54338096iti.1 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:05:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Olga Kornievskaia Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:05:43 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: question about open_owner sequencing To: linux-nfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi folks, I have a question about recovery from the BAD_SEQID and what should happen. I have the following application that does: 1. open(file1) 2. open(file2) 3. close(file1) 4. open(file3) 5. lock(file2) If CLOSE gets BAD_SEQID (for whatever reason), I see that LOCK later fails with BAD_SEQID as well. step1 OPEN creates open_owner1 seq 0 step2 OPEN uses open_owner1 seq1 step3 CLOSE uses open_owner1 seq2 gets BAD_SEQID step4 OPEN sends new open_owner2 seq2 and it triggers OPEN_CONFIRM with seq3 step5 sends LOCK with seq4 and open stateid from the reply in step 2. LOCK gets BAD_SEQID. Question: is client sending something incorrect? is server not correct? I tested against two different servers (Linux and NetApp) and both reply the same way so I'm leaning towards "no". But I don't see why "seq4" is not a valid sequence given that the open_owner/sequence was just confirmed. Thanks.