> -----Original Message----- > From: Myklebust, Trond > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 10:12 AM > To: Labiaga, Ricardo > Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] nfs41: New NFS4CLNT_RECLAIM_COMPLETE_PENDING > state > > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 09:51 -0800, Labiaga, Ricardo wrote: > > On 12/7/09 6:47 AM, "Trond Myklebust" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I don't see how your interpretation changes anything w.r.t the question > of whether we need a new state or not. You can still set > NFS4CLNT_RECLAIM_REBOOT and get it to do the right thing... > Agreed, I was trying to avoid calling nfs4_do_reclaim() and friends when there was no work to do. I agree the optimization does not warrant the extra state complexity since NFS4CLNT_RECLAIM_REBOOT will indeed do the job. I'll make the change after we reach agreement on the NFSv4 IETF list. - ricardo -- 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
