On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:57 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:14:38PM +0000, Adamson, Andy wrote: >> >> On Sep 12, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 15:13 +0000, Adamson, Andy wrote: >>>> After doing more test verification, here are the reasons for the low watermark. Reason #2 is the strongest justification. > > 1 and 2 don't sound right. What exactly were the test failures? > > The client and server's gss code already check the context expiry for > us--we don't want an extra check in an upper layer on the client. Yeah, I agree that another upcall is not really the right way to go. What we want is to be notified (on the client) when a user's credential has changed - either destroyed or renewed. I have some ideas which I will propose after these patches are resolved. > > The context *will* expire unexpectedly sometimes, and we do have to > handle that. (The server's clock could be a tad faster than the > server's, or the server could reboot, etc., etc.) Agreed, and the patch set needs to recognize (handle) this. But this is not the normal case. > > I agree with all the suggestions for trying to anticipate expiry in the > normal cases and preparing to minimize the damage, that's fine. But > once the expiry finally comes we should leave the existing mechanisms to > do their job. I'm not changing what happens at GSS context expiry, but what happens just before the context expires. I do hear the arguments against the low watermark, and will submit patches with a single (the so-called high) watermark. We can then proceed from there. :) -->Andy > > --b. -- 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
