Re: Should we be aggressively invalidating cache when using -onolock?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



----- "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sep 20, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Sachin Prabhu wrote:
> 
> > ----- "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> It also seems to me that if RHEL 4 is _not_ invalidating on lock,
> then
> >> it is not working as designed.  AFAIK the Linux NFS client has
> always
> >> invalidated a file's data cache on lock.  Did I misread something?
> >> 
> > 
> > The flock support for NFS was only implemented in the 2.6.12 kernel.
> Hence on the RHEL 4 kernel ie 2.6.9 nfs_file_operations->flock is NULL
> and any flock operations performed by the application was only
> applicable on that node. No part of the NFS client code was executed
> for the flock() operation. 
> 
> I see, so in RHEL 4, the original fcntl(2) invalidate-on-lock behavior
> is working correctly, but flock(2) is not, since flock(2) wasn't
> supported in 2.6.9's NFS client.  Correct?
> 
Yes.
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux