On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:44:09 +0300
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/11/2012 04:32 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
> > On 06/11/2012 03:39 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> But I'm guessing we were wrong to assume that existing setups that
> >>> people perceived as working would have that path, because the failures
> >>> in the absence of that path were probably less obvious.
> >>>
>
>
> One more thing, the most important one. We have already fixed that in the
> past and I was hoping the lesson was learned. Apparently it was not, and
> we are doomed to do this mistake for ever!!
>
> What ever crap fails times out and crashes, in the recovery code, we don't
> give a dam. It should never affect any Server-client communication.
>
> When the grace periods ends the clients gates opens period. *Any* error
> return from state recovery code must be carefully ignored and normal
> operations resumed. At most on error, we move into a mode where any
> recovery request from client is accepted, since we don't have any better
> data to verify it.
>
> Please comb recovery code to make sure any catastrophe is safely ignored.
> We already did that before and it used to work.
>
That's not the case, and hasn't ever been AFAICT. The code has changed
a bit recently, but the existing behavior in this regard was preserved.
>From nfs4_check_open_reclaim:
return nfsd4_client_record_check(clp) ? nfserr_reclaim_bad : nfs_ok;
...if there is no client record, then the reclaim request fails. Doesn't
the RFC mandate that?
--
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
