On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 10:46:10AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > 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... Looks like the baseline got broken once again, so I'll need some time to track that down first. > > 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? Probably, but I'd need to take a deeper look at this. -- 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
