> That's expected behaviour, yes. NFS close-to-open cache consistency > semantics do not allow for concurrent access while the file is being > updated. Can you elaborate on that a bit? My rough understanding of close-to-open cache consistency is basically that a clients changes are not guaranteed to be on the server until a close(2) and that a client is only guaranteed to check for updates on open(2). I can therefore see why one client reading while another is appending could result in stale data being read from the cache (and indeed, this is the reason the test program I provided continually open and closes the file, seeking as necessary). But I'm having a hard time seeing why close-to-open cache consistency allows for returning data from the cache that never existed in the file. -- 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
