On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 08:23:36PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 14:15 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 02:06:16PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 11:49 AM, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:01:27AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 2:04 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle. > > > > > > com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Xuan Qi reports that the Linux NFSv4 client failed to lock a > > > > > > file > > > > > > that was migrated. The steps he observed on the wire: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The client sent a LOCK request > > > > > > 2. The server replied NFS4ERR_MOVED > > > > > > 3. The client switched to the destination server > > > > > > 4. The client sent the LOCK request again with a bumped > > > > > > lock sequence ID > > > > > > 5. The server rejected the LOCK request with > > > > > > NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID > > > > > > > > > > The list of steps could be more clear: > > > > > > > > > > 1. The client sent a LOCK request to the source server > > > > > 2. The source server replied NFS4ERR_MOVED > > > > > 3. The client switched to the destination server > > > > > 4. The client sent the same LOCK request to the destination > > > > > server with a bumped lock sequence ID > > > > > 5. The destination server rejected the LOCK request with > > > > > NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC 3530 section 8.1.5 provides a list of NFS errors which do > > > > > > not > > > > > > bump a lock sequence ID. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, RFC 3530 is now obsoleted by RFC 7530. In RFC 7530 > > > > > > section > > > > > > 9.1.7, this list has been updated by the addition of > > > > > > NFS4ERR_MOVED. > > > > > > > > I guess we figured the backwards-incompatible change was OK since > > > > essentially the Solaris server is the first we know of to be > > > > making real > > > > use of NFS4ERR_MOVED? > > > > > > > > And probably it's required for the their implementation because > > > > the old > > > > server no longer has the ability to update the state once it's > > > > reached > > > > the point of returning ERR_MOVED. > > > > > > > > OK, makes sense to me, I think. > > > > > > Hi Bruce- > > > > > > Does this mean you will take this patch, or should > > > I just add your Reviewed-by: ? > > > > I can take it if nobody objects. Mind if I append the above to the > > changelog? (Just want to document why we think the apparently > > backwards-incompatible change is OK.) > > > I've already added it to my linux-next branch as a stable patch. OK, fine by me, dropping.--b. -- 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
