On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:07:48 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 13:47 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 04:33:40PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > It looks like nfs_inode_return_delegation always calls nfs_msync_inode > > > > on any valid delegation before returning it, regardless of the > > > > delegation type. > > > > > > > > RFC 3530 says this: > > > > > > > > If the client is granted a read delegation, it is assured that no > > > > other client has the ability to write to the file for the duration of > > > > the delegation. If the client is granted a write delegation, the > > > > client is assured that no other client has read or write access to > > > > the file. > > > > > > > > That doesn't seem to imply that we must flush writes before returning > > > > either type of delegation. OTOH, maybe it makes sense to treat those as > > > > cache consistency points since a delegreturn sort of implies that > > > > another client wants to use the file. > > > > > > > > I'm not quite sure how to interpret the spec here... > > > > > > If there's that call could cause the client to wait for an actual write > > > to succeed before returning the delegation, then something's wrong. > > > > We're certainly expected to write back data before returning a write > > delegation (see Section 9.4.4 of RFC 3530). > > > > For the case of a read delegation, then the spec is silent because it > > contains no discussion of the case where a server grants both an open > > for write and a read delegation. If you want a normative statement on > > what clients should do for that case, then I suggest a discussion on the > > IETF list with a view to getting it into RFC3530-bis. > > Yeah, that would be a good idea to get nailed down at some point. > > (But the current server implementation doesn't allow write opens in this > situation. So I wonder why we're seeing any commit from the client at > all?) > > --b. This problem was reported against a RHEL5 client and server. It's possible that there's another bug that's allowing that somehow, but I'll need to look over the capture file again to see if I can find it. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
