On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 08:39:59PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: > On Aug. 11, 2008, 19:28 +0300, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:17:35PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > >> Hi Benny- > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Aug. 11, 2008, 18:58 +0300, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 05:09:36PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: > >>>>> Bruce, in a couple locations the nfsd needs to encode the stateid.seqid > >>>>> as a uint32_t rather than as opaque. > >>>> Agreed, thanks. > >>>> > >>>> Though I have a hard time figuring out whether this has any impact in > >>>> practice. Presumably the only change on the wire is that we'll get the > >>>> endianness of the stateid4.seqid right? But that field is mostly opaque > >>>> to the client anyway; 3530 says > >>>> > >>>> The server is required to increment the seqid field > >>>> monotonically at each transition of the stateid. This is > >>>> important since the client will inspect the seqid in OPEN > >>>> stateids to determine the order of OPEN processing done by the > >>>> server. > >>>> > >>>> but doesn't say why this is important. I'm sure this has been brought > >>>> up on the ietf list before, but can't recall whether someone came up > >>>> with a justification for the importance of this. > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, so I figure these should be queued up for the next (2.6.28) > >>>> merge window. Thanks! > >>> Actually, I think this breaks delegreturn. > >>> Since we decode the stateid.si_generation correctly, it will get swabbed > >>> in delegreturn on little-endian servers. This will cause > >>> nfs4_preprocess_stateid_op/check_stateid_generation as called by > >>> nfsd4_delegreturn to fail. And eventually, unhash_delegation > >>> wouldn't be called. > >> Sounds plausible, good catch. Yet another reason we should have an > >> easy-to-access delegation counter metric on both the client and > >> server. > >> > >> I wonder, since you found three separate places where this is needed: > >> should you construct a helper function? > > > > A stateid encoder/decoder? Sure, that could be a good idea. > > Cool. Would you like me to rework the patches I've already sent > or send a patch adding the helpers on top of them? I'm fine with whichever you think makes the most sense. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
