On 06/11/2012 09:59 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 21:40 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > >> And again, please explain why do you want it. What is wrong with the >> case we all agree with? ie: "Client can not call LAYOUTRETURN until >> all in-flight RPCs return, with or without an error" > > Who "agreed" to this? This would mean that if the DS goes down, we can't > ever send LAYOUTRETURN which is patently wrong. > "DS goes down" is under the above "RPC return an error" the error condition of an RPC is well defined. >From what of my words did you understand that I said "we can't ever send a LAYOUTRETURN" If my English is wrongly worded. Which is perfectly possible. Please correct me so I can learn. Did you honestly think that's what I meant? I meant we all agree, that this case is covered by RFC. That is - no one would accuse a client who does that, as violating the RFC. And again my question. The motivation? 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
