On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 18:29 -0700, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > With this patch I'm back to the previous behavior. That is > wait your grace period then continue. > > --- > NFSD: Remove a wrong check in nfs4_open > > We are already doing the proper grace period checking > farther down in nfs4_open. This check was just checking > nothing and was totally unrelated to the comment about > "RECLAIM_COMPLETE". It was a bug because if an open was > coming before the grace period end, it would then never > pass the condition of not being cl_firststate. > > Boaz > > --- > @@ -295,15 +295,6 @@ nfsd4_open(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate, > if (open->op_create && open->op_claim_type != NFS4_OPEN_CLAIM_NULL) > return nfserr_inval; > > - /* > - * RFC5661 18.51.3 > - * Before RECLAIM_COMPLETE done, server should deny new lock > - */ > - if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate) && > - !cstate->session->se_client->cl_firststate && > - open->op_claim_type != NFS4_OPEN_CLAIM_PREVIOUS) > - return nfserr_grace; > - BTW: restricting opens to CLAIM_PREVIOUS only during the grace period seems wrong. If I have already reclaimed my delegation, then why shouldn't I be able to do a CLAIM_DELEGATE_CUR and/or CLAIM_DELEG_CUR_FH open? It is not as if those can ever cause a lock that will conflict with some other client's lock reclaims. Trond -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- 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
