On 12/7/09 6:47 AM, "Trond Myklebust" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 00:21 -0800, Ricardo Labiaga wrote: >> nfs4_state_end_reclaim_reboot() can also be invoked as a >> result of error processing, so it is not a safe place to >> invoke RECLAIM_COMPLETE. Instead, create a new state >> flag that tracks the fact that a RECLAIM_COMPLETE needs >> to be issued when all state has been reclaimed, or when >> we're done establishing the session for the first time. >> >> If an error occurs in the main state manager loop, just clear the >> flag. No sense in checking if the flag is set in order to clear it. >> We're not going to issue the RECLAIM_COMPLETE since there's a high >> probability that we had some kind of communication or session problem >> which is s how we ended up in the error case. > > This patch looks wrong for two reasons. > > 1. We only want to call RECLAIM_COMPLETE if we saw a STALE_CLIENTID > error prior to the last attempt to re-establish the client id. Section 18.51.3 "Whenever a client establishes a new client ID and before it does the first non-reclaim operation that obtains a lock, it MUST send a RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to FALSE, even if there are no locks to reclaim. If non-reclaim locking operations are done before the RECLAIM_COMPLETE, an NFS4ERR_GRACE error will be returned." I interpreted the spec as you did, but I was talked into interpreting the previous statement as: "The client doesn't always know if the server has rebooted, so send it a RECLAIM_COMPLETE after your initial EXCHANGE_ID/ CREATE_SESSION as well and all will be happy". Let me send an email to the NFSv4 IETF list to discuss it there. > 2. We have to call it before we can start the no-grace reclaims. My oversight. I should have placed the check for the new state under RECLAIM_REBOOT and before RECLAIM_NOGRACE - provided we determine that we need to send RECLAIM_COMPLETE even in the case where we didn't see STALE_CLIENTID > > Looking at the code, I'm not convinced that we need a separate > 'RECLAIM_COMPLETE_PENDING' state. It should be pretty much identical to > the existing NFS4CLNT_RECLAIM_REBOOT state. > The only difference is that in the NFSv4.1 case we want to be able to > call RECLAIM_COMPLETE even in the case where we have no state to > reclaim. > Yes, this would be the case if my interpretation of the spec is incorrect. - ricardo > Cheers > Trond -- 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
