On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:34:23AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 18:05:31 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 05:39:26PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > > Below is my suggestion. It seems easy enough. It even works. > > > > Woah! > > > > Anyway, looks reasonable to me, and it fixes an immediate problem so I'm > > inclined to just apply. ... > And if you are going to apply it, you'll want: > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> Oh, gah, then I forgot to actually apply. Anyway, it's a reasonably self-contained fix for an important bug so I'll send it as part of a later bugfix pull request. I thought it could also use a more explicit description of the resulting problem, so I added: ... so further delegations should not be handed out. The current code fails to do so, and the result is effectively a live-lock under some workloads: a client attempting a conflicting operation on a read-delegated file receives NFS4ERR_DELAY and retries the operation, but by the time it retries the server may already have given out another delegation. --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
