On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 03:27:32PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> No. The right fix is to make the server support device notifications. > > And you instantly thrash performane on any server that doesn't, which > is why I sent out the errata that no one objected out. I'm happy to > open this again on the WG list, but the notification scheme is such a > big hammer that it absolutely isn't worth implementing. Given how > GETDEVICELIST is specified in 4.1 the original RFC language also is > inconsistent with itself, so that's not an argument for the old > behavior. The reason for the GETDEVICEINFO description in RFC5661 is that you need some mechanism to allow clients to know when a deviceid is retired. There is no reasonable alternative to notification that doesn't cause problems on either the client or the server. That said, do note that one valid solution here is to have deviceids that never expire (i.e. if you need to retire them, then you allocate a new one). Given that the deviceid is a 128-bit field, such a solution is 100% practical. That would allow you to say you support notification, but not have to implement it. Trond -- 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
