On 2012-05-24 16:49, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 05/24/2012 03:41 PM, Benny Halevy wrote: > >> On 2012-05-24 03:16, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >>> >>> 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? >> >> Yes >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> True. This is not implemented yet. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> According to the new errata the server will have to simulate layout returns in the ROC >> case on last CLOSE if the (forgetful) client did not explicitly return the layout. >> This is not implemented either :-( >> > > > Yes Benny it is implemented. I implemented it and you fix a bug I had. See: > nfs4pnfsd.c::pnfsd_roc(...) > and it's call site. It is called on last call and all is working well (except some locking > bugs I'll send a fix to later). Otherwise both exofs and DF would have crapped out for sure. Duh, you're right of course. > > With ROC set all work well. This is why I say we should set it for now to make sure we do > not have the above bug. Yup, see patchset in reply. Thanks! Benny > > Thanks > Boaz > >> Benny >> >>> >>> 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 > > > -- > 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 -- 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
