On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:21:02 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. The best laid plan of mice .... > > 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. Looks good, thanks. NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
