On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:37:26 -0500 Malahal Naineni <malahal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Steve Dickson [SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > > > 2) if we assume that it is fairly representative of one, how can we > > > achieve retrying indefinitely with NFS, or at least some large finite > > > amount? > > The amount of looping would be peer speculation. If the problem can > > not be handled by one simple retry I would say we simply pass the > > error up to the app... Its an application issue... > > As someone said, ESTALE is an incorrect errno for a path based call. > How about turning ESTALE into ENOENT after a retry or few retries? > It's not really the same thing. One could envision an application that's repeatedly renaming a new file on top of another one. The file is never missing from the namespace of the server, but you could still end up getting an ESTALE. That would break other atomicity guarantees in an even worse way, IMO... -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
