On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:06:48PM -0400, Andy Adamson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM, William Dauchy <wdauchy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, William Dauchy <wdauchy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I'm getting a trace following an unhandled error on a linux nfs client > >> 3.4.7 x86_64. > >> NFS: nfs4_reclaim_open_state: unhandled error -10026. Zeroing state > > > > For the moment I don't know if the error is coming from a bad server > > implementation or if it's on client side. Should I assume that this an > > error that should never hit the client? > > Yes. > > The client only sends OPEN reclaims after noting the server has > rebooted due to previously receiving an NFS4ERR_STALE_CLIENTID or > NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID error from a state-full operation (RENEW, OPEN, > OPEN_DOWNGRADE, OPEN_CONFIRM, CLOSE, LOCK, LOCKU) which triggers the > client to establish a new clientid via > SETCLIENTID/SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM. > > Upon server reboot, all state that the previous server instance had is > invalid - including OPEN seqid's. So, the server returning > NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID (10026) on an OPEN reclaim is illegal. Wait, but couldn't there be multiple reclaims using the same open owner, in which case later reclaims could in theory hit BAD_SEQID? --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
