On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:23:56PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > I suggest that we only allow the reclaim of locks > on the original address against which they were established. I'm not sure what that means. If a server stops responding, the v4.0 client has two choices: it can either wait for the server to come back, and reclaim when it does. Or if it supports failover it can go find another server and perform reclaims over there. I'm a little unclear how it does that, but I suppose it first tests somehow to see whether its existing state is supported, and if not, it establishes a new clientid with SETCLIENTID/SETCILENTID_CONFIRM using its old name, and then attempts to reclaim. You're now requiring it *not* to do that if it happens that the servers all rebooted in the meantime. How does it know that that's what happened? Or maybe that's not what you want to require, I'm not sure. --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
