On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:44:09 -0400 Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 15:18 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > I think the part that causes problems is having userspace do this. In > > theory, if the kernel were in charge of sending the UMNT, then it's not > > really a problem since it knows when to do it. If we have code that > > sends a UMNT already, why not do a best-effort UMNT call from the > > kernel when we tear down the sb? > > Purely for the pleasure of allowing the server to maintain inaccurate > statistics about who is currently mounting what? I think not... > > You can get far more accurate results by replacing the MNT/UMNT state > counter with a purely server-based scheme to track who accessed one or > more files on each exported partition in the past 5 minutes or so. That > would even work with NFSv4... > True, but for better or worse, UMNT is part of the protocol. It seems like we ought to do our best to implement it, even if it is fundamentally flawed. -- 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
