On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 01:49:34PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > This is in violation of the pnf-objects draft. Ithought that's an RFC by now? :) > We are obliged > on chown to return layouts because of how the CAPs work, they > have an embedded CAPs version which might increment when chown > is changed, and also the credential keys. Which means that using > the old layout will return an E_ACCESS from the OSD. This is a good enough argument to just split the flags into one for chown and one for truncate. Can you confirm that any other setattr but a truncate to a smaller size or chown is fine with your interpretation of RFC5664? > But.. > > I will agree with this patch. The above is true in an OSD > protocol higher then NO_SEC. But none of the current implementation > support anything other then NO_SEC. > > Second also with none-NO_SEC once a client does a chown the server > needs to RECALL all other clients, so as Peng says above the Server > should/can also recall from us. > > But some good sole needs to make an errata at the RFC draft so to > explain. I'd rather not violate the existing RFC unless we have a good reason for it and an errata out. Having a flag to return on chown for the object layout seems like the easier way to go forward. -- 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
