On 09/14/2014 07:43 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Ack Benny > -- > 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 -- 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
