From: mike.kupfer@sun.com Subject: Re: [NFS] Re: Non-blocking lock requests during the grace period Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:04:32 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <200211190104.gAJ14Wf9136218@athyra.eng.sun.com> References: <15829.21137.152716.652146@helicity.uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Juan Gomez , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:01:21 +0100." <15829.21137.152716.652146@helicity.uio.no> List-ID: >>>>> "Trond" == Trond Myklebust writes: >>>>> " " == Juan Gomez writes: >> (note that F_GETLK man page does not provide EAGAIN as a >> possible error code). F_GETLK indicates a conflict by changing the arg struct to show the conflicting lock. As for the original topic, I would hesitate before changing the client locking code to return EAGAIN just because the server is in its grace period. The "blocking" or "non-blocking" behavior is tied to what happens when there is already a lock that conflicts with the requested one. When the server is in the grace period, it's unknown as to whether there is already a lock that conflicts with the requested one. Mike Kupfer mike.kupfer@sun.com Solaris File Sharing Speaking for myself, not for Sun.