On 11/29/2010 04:30 PM, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > 2010/11/29 Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx>: >> On 11/28/2010 01:42 PM, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: >>> Re-posting the whole set of strict cache patches. >> >> I try to explain here the "strict cache" semantics as I'm not sure >> whether I understand it clearly. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >> >> Strict cache semantics >> >> ïo provides stricter cache coherency among cifs clients that access >> ï ïthe same files. >> ïo The clients will read data from the Server always, except when they >> ï ïhold read oplock or Level II oplock on the file. >> ïo The clients will write data to the Server always, except when they >> ï ïhold exclusive oplock on the file. >> ïo When we close the last filehandle of the inode, file should be >> ï ïmarked for revalidation as it is possible for the client to access >> ï ïstale data from the cache when we open it again with a read >> ï ïoplock. >> ïo On fsync/mmap, invalidate inode if read oplock has not been set. >> >> >> Is this the semantics being proposed? Did I miss anything? > > Yes, you are right - it is exactly what I mean. > Also, would be good to know what level of testing these patches have undergone. Could you share the test results as well? Thanks, -- Suresh Jayaraman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
