On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If the client is promising to return the layout ASAP, then there is no > need to return DELAY and have the server retry. Instead default to the > normal procedure described in RFC5661. > > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/nfs/callback_proc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/callback_proc.c b/fs/nfs/callback_proc.c > index 1b24ad07d4f5..724a9b756ab0 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/callback_proc.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/callback_proc.c > @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ static u32 initiate_file_draining(struct nfs_client *clp, > pnfs_mark_matching_lsegs_return(lo, > &free_me_list, > &args->cbl_range); > - rv = NFS4ERR_DELAY; > + rv = NFS4_OK; It is possible that we've cleared all outstanding layout segments of the file and returns NFS4_OK to CB_LAYOUTRECALL. Then server would be expecting LAYOUTRETURN while client will not send one. IMO we'd better re-check list_empty(&lo->plh_segs) to decide what to return here. Cheers, Tao -- 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
