On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:56:49AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:16:06PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > The lease code behavior during the lease-breaking process is strange. > > Fixing it completely would be complicated by the fact that the current > > code allows a lease break to downgrade the lease instead of necessarily > > removing it. > > > > But I can't see what the point of that feature is. And googling around > > and looking at the Samba code, I can't see any evidence that anyone uses > > it. Think we could just do away with removing the ability to downgrade > > to satisfy a lease break? > > Without having looked too deeply, just let me point out that > Samba here has a plain flaw. Early Linux Kernel versions > that we programmed against did not properly support read > only leases, so we did not implement that initially. If I > remember correctly we never got around to finally do it once > it became available. Eventually we will probably, as read > only leases are a pretty important feature to present to > CIFS clients. Thanks, I didn't know that. (Or I did, and I forgot.) When you *do* implement that, is there any chance you'd have this need to be able to downgrade to a read lease in the case of a conflict? --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
