bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx 写道: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 02:00:13PM +0800, fanchaoting wrote: >> Myklebust, Trond 写道: >>> On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 13:23 +0800, fanchaoting wrote: >>>> Myklebust, Trond 写道: >>>>> On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 12:18 +0800, fanchaoting wrote: >>>>>> I think when the nfs server delete the file , >>>>>> the server should notice the nfs client, >>>>>> but the upstream kernel does't this. >>>>> So is this a problem with the client or the server? In other words, if >>>>> you use a different server/client combination, do you see a different >>>>> result? >>>>> >>>> I think that the server has the problem .when the server deletes the file , >>>> it should notice the client immediately. >>> There is no notification mechanism in NFS; on open(), the client is >>> supposed to revalidate its cached information and the server is supposed >>> to return an ESTALE error if the filehandle is no longer valid. Either >>> one of these 2 mechanisms (client revalidation or server reply) could be >>> going wrong here, which is why I'm asking. >> I found J. Bruce Fields's patch(break delegations on unlink) maybe solve this problem . >> But I did't found it in the upstream kernel. > > Yes, still working on getting that merged. Next step is probably to > rebase it on top of jlayton's ESTALE patches, assuming those will go in > first. In theory they could make 3.8 but that may be optimistic. > Yes, when I applyed the patch, this problem was solved. I found when server deleted the file , it can return "DELEGRETURN" to the nfs client. > --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 > > -- 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
