Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE867C43381 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 21:47:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A60A20652 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 21:47:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726296AbfCEVrs (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Mar 2019 16:47:48 -0500 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:40572 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726902AbfCEVrs (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Mar 2019 16:47:48 -0500 Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id 14A6949A; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 16:47:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 16:47:48 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Jeremy Allison , Linux NFS Mailing List , Volker.Lendecke@sernet.de, Jeff Layton , samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-fsdevel Subject: Re: Better interop for NFS/SMB file share mode/reservation Message-ID: <20190305214748.GD27437@fieldses.org> References: <379106947f859bdf5db4c6f9c4ab8c44f7423c08.camel@kernel.org> <20190208155052.GB20573@fieldses.org> <20190208221239.GA199180@jra3> <20190214210652.GC9216@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190214210652.GC9216@fieldses.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 04:06:52PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > After this: > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=154966239918297&w=2 > > delegations would no longer conflict with opens from the same tgid. So > if your threads all run in the same process and you're willing to manage > conflicts among your own clients, that should still allow you to do > multiple opens of the same file without giving up your lease/delegation. > > I'd be curious to know whether that works with Samba's design. Any idea whether that would work? (Easy? Impossible? Possible, but realistically the changes required to Samba would be painful enough that it'd be unlikely to get done?) --b.