On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:45 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:37:23PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:46 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > As I understand it, the rule for the client is: you're allowed to >> > reclaim only the set locks that you held previously, where "the set of >> > locks you held previously" is "the set of locks held by the clientid >> > which last managed to send a reclaim OPEN or OPEN_CONFIRM". So for >> > example once client1 sends that unrelated OPEN reclaim it's giving up on >> > anything else it doesn't manage to reclaim this time around. >> >> The rule for the client is very simple: "You may attempt to reclaim >> any locks that were held immediately prior to the reboot of the >> server." >> It doesn't matter how those locks were established (ordinary OPEN, >> delegated open, reclaim open, LOCK, reclaim lock...). >> >> However if the server reboots and the client did not manage to >> re-establish a lease (SETCLIENTID+SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM and/or >> EXCHANGE_ID+CREATE_SESSION) before the second reboot, then it is the >> server's responsibility to block that client from reclaiming any >> locks, since the client has no way to know how many times the server >> has rebooted. >> Ditto, of course, if the client tries to reclaim any locks outside the >> grace period and the server isn't tracking whether or not those locks >> have been handed out to another client. > > Agreed with everything except: > > (SETCLIENTID+SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM and/or > EXCHANGE_ID+CREATE_SESSION) > > If I remember correctly: RFC 5661 says the point where this happens is > actually RECLAIM_COMPLETE. RFC 3530 was more vague but suggested first > OPEN reclaim or OPEN_CONFIRM, and 3530bis makes that explicit. > > But the client can choose an earlier point without violating the > protocol--it means it will decline reclaiming some things it could have, > but that's safer than the reverse mistake. > Where is this documented? I'm not seeing it. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@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
