On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:21:23 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 07:23:48AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Have the CB_LAYOUTRECALL code treat NFS4_OK and NFS4ERR_DELAY returns > > equivalently. Change the code to periodically resend CB_LAYOUTRECALLS > > until the ls_layouts list is empty or the client returns a different > > error code. > > > > If we go for two lease periods without the list being emptied or the > > client sending a hard error, then we give up and clean out the list > > anyway. > > This looks reasonable to me, but I'll need to actually test it > before giving an ACK. > Please do, I don't have a good way to test this at the moment... > Btw, it seems like the delegation and layoutrecall code would benefit > from some more code sharing for timeouts. For example delegation > returns currently don't support NFS4ERR_DELAY at all. Yes... I also wonder -- are we handling revoked layouts correctly? Shouldn't we be handling revoked layouts like we would a revoked delegation? Stop allowing the stateid to be used and morph it appropriately so that a TEST_STATEID against it gives you an error? Right now, it doesn't look like TEST_STATEID is set up to handle layout stateids at all so they all get back NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@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
