On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:28:02PM +0800, Mi Jinlong wrote:
> Hi Trond et al:
>
> When i test the nfslock of NFSv3 at RHEL5.3GA (kernel: 2.6.18-128.el5),
> NLM server can not process client's retransmited request correctly.
>
> Steps of my test likes followed:
> client server
> | |
> step1 | open file |
> open |------------------------------->|
> | ok |
> |<-------------------------------|
> | | step2
> | -> | <- service nfslock stop
> | |
> step3 | WL1: write lock request{0, 0} |
> fcntl |------------------------------->|
> | |
> | WL1_re: WL1 retransmit |
> |------------------------------->|
> | |
> | WL1.reply ENOLCK |
> |<-------------------------------|
> | | step4
> | -> | <- service nfslock start
> | |
> step5 | WL2: write lock request{0, 0} |
> fcntl |------------------------------->|
> | |
> | WL1_re.reply OK |
> |<-------------------------------|
> | WL2.reply EBLOCKD |
> |<-------------------------------|
> V V
>
> Client can not acquire for write lock any more after step4.
>
> Reason:
> Server reply ENOLCK for WL1 to client because nfslock service stoped,
I don't completely understand that part: is it because the monitor call
to statd fails?
> but it can not distinguish retransmited request with normal request,
> so it reply OK for WL1_re to client after nfslock service start. But
> fcntl client called will return when it receive WL1.reply, WL1_re.reply
> will be droped at Client. So that, the lock between client and server
> is different. When client send a some lock request to server again,
> it will get a EBLOCKD error from Server.
But, OK, I get the idea, and generic DRC code shared by nfsd and nlm
makes sense to me; thanks for looking into this.
--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
