On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:30:27PM +0100, Frank van Maarseveen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:56:13PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:46AM +0100, Frank van Maarseveen wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 06:24:16PM +0100, Frank van Maarseveen wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 07:07:22PM +0200, Pavel A wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone! > > > > > > > > > > I was trying not to create new topics, but it seems that posting to an > > > > > old one doesn't bring it up. Here is the original topic I'm referring > > > > > to: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/13108 > > > > > > > > > > I'm building an A/A cluster using NFS v3 and local file systems, and > > > > > looking for > > > > > efficient ways for failover (for now I have to restart nfs-kernel-server on > > > > > Takeover node to be able to initiate grace period), so the discussed solutions > > > > > are very interesting to me. > > > > > > > > > > Now (4 years after) in current nfs-utils packages (v. 1.2.2-4 and later) I can > > > > > see that the ability to release locks was really implemented and is > > > > > working well > > > > > (I mean interfaces /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_ip and > > > > > /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_filesystem), > > > > > but how about reacquiring locks on the node, share migrates to? - I've been > > > > > going through various mailing lists and found a lot of discussions on the topic > > > > > (also dated mainly 2007), but don't seem to find any rpc-based mechanism or > > > > > interface like /proc/fs/nfsd/nlm_set_grace to do that, was it ever made? > > > > > > > > I've posted a patch some time ago implementing > > > > /proc/fs/nfsd/relock_filesystem: > > > > > > > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/42360 > > > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/42361 > > > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/42362 > > > > > > Can this patch be scheduled for inclusion in mainline (3.3)? > > > > Could you resend and I'll take another look? > > I'll check it again but except for one fuzz it should still apply on > 3.2-rc. Patch offsets and an incidental fuzz is sometimes informative > about possible conflict areas. It has been verified on 3.0 and 3.1 Thanks. It would be helpful to have them resent in any case. > > But this should really be fixed to handle v4 locks as well. > > Why do you think it doesn't? The fact that unlock_* doesn't. Looking at it.... I suppose that doesn't matter as much on the grace-period starting side. How much use does that have on its own? --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
