On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 09:21:01AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 06:16:50 -0700 > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Ok, feel free do drop my comments re the access/deny bitmap. I don't > > really think this is worth it to avoid the small false positive to > > allow downgrading if a different open owner had a r/o or w/o open, but > > it's probably indeed way to much churn for this series to do anything > > about it. > > > > Ok, thanks. > > I agree that having to track this is a little ridiculous. No real client > really cares about that, but there are some pynfs tests that will fail > if we remove it altogether. I broke it a couple of years ago and Bruce > dinged me on it, so I'm inclined not to change it here. Looking back at the spec again, that server behavior is a SHOULD, but I'm not sure why. I suppose it's just an attempt to keep clients to the stricter behavior in case some other server implementation requires it. It seems like a low priority, so if it makes your life easier, we can ditch it. --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
