nfs-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 06/02/2007 10:39:10 AM: > On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 12:53 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > It also means that you're calling twice down > > > into the filesystem for every call to may_open() (once for > > > vfs_permission() and once for break_lease()) and 3 times in > > > do_sys_truncate(). > > > > > > Would it perhaps make sense to package up the call to vfs_permission() > > > and break_lease() as a single 'may_open()' inode operation that could be > > > called by may_open(), do_sys_truncate() and nfsd? > > > > Could be, but this may no longer make sense when we try to do > > lease-breaking on rename and unlink. > > Hmm... Clustered lease breaking on rename and unlink really needs to be > done _atomically_ with the actual operation. It really needs to be done > inside the ->rename() and ->unlink() operation because only the > filesystem can guarantee atomicity. A cluster filesystem don't need the inode operation breake_lease. The fs must be able to detect the conflict and break the lease using __break_lease() call on all the nodes that hold a conflicting leases. Marc. > Thinking about it, perhaps the may_open() thing is wrong too: again, you > have atomicity requirements inside the open() call. A break_lease() > inode operation won't help either... > > Trond > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > NFS maillist - NFS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs - 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
