From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: nfsd, rmtab, failover, and stale filehandles Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:42:28 -0400 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20040608034228.GA31761@fieldses.org> References: <20040506185603.GM23287@polop.usc.edu> <20040506191351.GP23287@polop.usc.edu> <20040506215311.GA26968@polop.usc.edu> <20040506222455.GP18964@fieldses.org> <20040506230055.GC26968@polop.usc.edu> <20040507182543.GA27341@fieldses.org> <20040507213811.GL30964@polop.usc.edu> <20040507223414.GQ30964@polop.usc.edu> <16581.11543.342424.795946@cse.unsw.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Garrick Staples , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BXXVU-0005u8-OT for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:42:36 -0700 Received: from dsl093-002-214.det1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.2.214] helo=pumpkin.fieldses.org ident=Debian-exim) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.30) id 1BXXVU-0004Lq-7y for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:42:36 -0700 To: Neil Brown In-Reply-To: <16581.11543.342424.795946@cse.unsw.edu.au> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 01:05:59PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > > I'm looking at exportfs.c to see if I can add in a call to flush the caching > > when unmounting, does the following seem reasonable? > > The code already flushes the caches if anything has changed. > > Towards the end of main() in exportfs.c there is: > > xtab_export_write(); > if (new_cache) > cache_flush(force_flush); Ah! I missed that. > And to answer Bruce's subsequent question: > > Can someone explaing what the reason was for adding the -f flag to > > exportfs? > Because it is useful for testing. It should not be needed during > normal running. Got it, that makes more sense. But if the only time "-f" is ever needed is when there's a bug somewhere, then maybe it should just be removed, or at least not documented? Otherwise it seems like it's only likely to cause confusion. --b. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: GNOME Foundation Hackers Unite! GUADEC: The world's #1 Open Source Desktop Event. GNOME Users and Developers European Conference, 28-30th June in Norway http://2004/guadec.org _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs