On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:17:04AM -0500, William A. (Andy) Adamson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:10 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:55:52AM -0500, William A. (Andy) Adamson wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:53 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:46:04AM -0500, Andy Adamson wrote: > >> >> > >> >> RFC 5661 in 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. > >> >> > >> >> So there will never be a 'first OPEN' (except for an OPEN reclaim) > >> >> without a RECLAIM_COMPLETE. > >> > > >> > There will be in the case of an entirely new client, or a client that > >> > missed the grace period completely. > >> > >> No, the MUST above applies to both a new client/client that missed the > >> grace period completely. In both cases the client is establishing a > >> new client ID. > > > > Oog, sorry, obviously I can't read--I see what you mean now. > > > > I haven't seen any client send a RECLAIM_COMPLETE or any server demand > > one yet, so do we all have this wrong? > > The latest Linux client does send a RECLAIM_COMPLETE after each > EXCHANGE_ID. This change was part of the 'A' tasks for NFSv4.1. Got it, corrected. In that case I think as a matter of priorities I should implement RECLAIM_COMPLETE before fixing the userland interface, etc., rather than after. I'll take a look.... --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
