On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:20:19 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > I'd rather not introduce those sorts of behavioral changes in this series, if only to reduce the churn. I have no objection to that sort of overhaul after this is complete though. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
