From: Neil Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] SGI 926917: make knfsd interact cleanly with HSMs Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:58:56 +1000 Message-ID: <16971.22880.262928.543410@cse.unsw.edu.au> References: <20050315074949.GA4541@sgi.com> <1112233192.1991.1031.camel@hole.melbourne.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List 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 1DGoxs-0001Xr-Rs for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:59:20 -0800 Received: from tone.orchestra.cse.unsw.edu.au ([129.94.242.59] ident=root) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1DGoxZ-0002n7-3Y for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:59:19 -0800 To: Greg Banks In-Reply-To: message from Greg Banks on Thursday March 31 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net 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 Thursday March 31, gnb@melbourne.sgi.com wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 18:49, Greg Banks wrote: > > This patch seeks to remedy the interaction between knfsd and HSMs by > > providing mechanisms to allow knfsd to tell an underlying filesystem > > (which supports HSMs) not to block for reads, writes and truncates > > of offline files. It's a port of a Linux 2.4 patch used in SGI's > > ProPack distro for the last 12 months. The patch: > > Any news on this patch? Is it good, bad, ugly, or what? Obviously I need a better system for keeping track of open issues... maybe some yellow postit notes would help :-) Yes, it looks reasonably sane. I'm not very comfortable about the + if (rqstp->rq_vers == 3) usage. Shouldn't it be + if (rqstp->rq_vers >= 3) as presumably NFSv4 would like NFSERR_JUKEBOX returns too. Also, it assumes an extension to the semantics of IFREG files such that O_NONBLOCK has a meaning... What exactly is that meaning? "Returned -EAGAIN if the request will take a long time for some vague definition of long" ... Is this new semantic in any way 'standard' or accepted by the filesystem gurus (e.g. Al Viro)?? NeilBrown ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by Demarc: A global provider of Threat Management Solutions. Download our HomeAdmin security software for free today! http://www.demarc.com/Info/Sentarus/hamr30 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs