On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:13:29PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 18:04 -0500, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > This patch series implements client side support for volatile file handle > > recovery (RFC 3530 section 4.2 and 4.3) with walk back using the dcache. To > > test the client you either need a server that supports volatile file handles or > > you can hard code the server to output NFS4ERR_FHEXPIRED instead of > > NFSERR_STALE. (See the last patch in the series) > > WHY do we want to support this kind of "feature"? As you said, the RFC > doesn't actually help in figuring out how this crap is supposed to work > in practice, so why do we even consider starting to give a damn? *nod*. Pretending we handle it seems fairly dangerous. I'd much prefer outright rejecting it. -- 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
