On Jul 2, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 16:35 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >> On Jul 2, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Charles 'Boyo wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Usually we see this behavior because of a race between an OPEN with delegation and a delegation recall. In this case, however, the client is actively returning a READ >>>> delegation, then proceeding to use it anyway. I don't see the server's recall callback, though, and there are other indications that this trace is not complete. So it's hard >>>> to be 100% confident. >>>> >>> The trace is not complete, it includes just enough information to >>> explain the problem. >>> However I can confirm the service did not send a recall callback, the >>> client returned the delegation of its own "free will". >> >> The callback would come on a separate TCP connection. I can't think of a reason that a client would return a delegation by itself and then subsequently start to use it. > > I can: there are a number of servers out there that violate the spec by > returning a delegation as part of an OPEN(CLAIM_DELEGATE_CUR). Usually > those broken servers will send the exact same stateid as the delegation > that is being returned. The OPEN in frame 7 is a CLAIM_NULL OPEN, isn't it? -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com -- 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
