From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: 3 strange things in the lockd code ? Date: 08 Apr 2002 15:12:17 +0200 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <20020404194238.E25342@zeus.centre-cired.fr> <20020408145459.B12049@zeus.centre-cired.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from mons.uio.no ([129.240.130.14]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 16uYwm-0005uK-00 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 06:12:37 -0700 To: Dumas Patrice In-Reply-To: <20020408145459.B12049@zeus.centre-cired.fr> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: >>>>> " " == Dumas Patrice writes: > I didn't saw something really saying non-monitored clients > aren't allowed to do NLM_LOCK or NLM_LOCK_MSG, but I assume > they aren't. However I am pretty sure that monitored clients > can do NLM_LOCK_MSG and thus they can receive in turn > NLM_GRANTED_MSG, which should trigger them to send a > NLM_GRANTED_RES. And indeed the dmesg output I send in a mail > with subject "lockd bug (?)" shows linux nfs clients do send > NLM_GRANTED_MSG. I would certainly accept patches that fix the support for asynchronous calls on the server side. I'd be more sceptical about actually using them for the client though. >> I agree. We should be checking the host address as well. > I will try to make a patch. Thanks... Cheers, Trond _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs