Bruce, After looking more carefully at your changes, I have a question. Why didn't you modify the linux kernel routine, setlease(), so that it would either call f_op->set_lease() or __setlease()? Instead you created a new routine, nfs4_setlease(), and you modified the previous calls to setlease() in nfs4 to now call nfs4_setlease. - Robert Rappaport On 2/20/07, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 10:46:51AM -0500, Robert Rappaport wrote: > >We also have the same problem with leases, since we're using leases to > >implement NFSv4 delegations. There's a simple-minded patch here: > > > > http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=bfields-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=4e8aff5dabe07b2e4e95ef0c741a34f65409087f > > > >I'm not really sure if it's right. > > Thank you both for your helpful replies. In particular, the addition > of the calls to file system specific functions in routines, > fcntl_setlease() and break_lease(), as well as the modifications to > the file_operations and inode_operations structures, pointed to by > Bruce's reply, look exactly like the hooks that I would need to > proceed to resolve my problems. Is there any timetable established > for these modifications to make it into a future release? These hooks > would clearly benefit any cluster file system that has to deal with > leases. We've been concentrating on the posix locks problem first, but that may be done in time for 2.6.22. If someone wants to help--we'll need to figure out how to implement this for gfs2 and/or ocfs2. And any review or testing (e.g. with Samba) would be helpful. --b.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
