On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Nope. 3530 section 9.1.6. Sequencing of Lock Requests Note that for requests that contain a sequence number, for each state-owner, there should be no more than one outstanding request. -->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
