Benny hi If I remember/understand correctly, there is a mode in the RFC errata about the layout forgetful-model and a client sending a layout_get with an open_state_id after he already had previous state (layouts) on the file. As I understood this is an indication to the server that client has "forgotten" all it's layouts on a file, and Server can assume their return. Is my understanding correct? If Yes: Did we implement the internal return of all layouts, if above open_state_id is encountered? I thought we did but I can't find this code. Currently, I always set ROC so there is no leak. But theoretically ROC does not have to be set. I'm doing some heavy lifting of layout_return, and I want to make sure I have not missed a spot. If I'm correct that it is needed, and it's missing: My suggestion for now is that we always set ROC, disregarding FS so not to leak layouts and therefor inode-refs, until such time that we implement it. Thanks Boaz -- 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
