On Tue, Mar 07 2017, Trond Myklebust wrote: > Hi Neil, > > On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 14:54 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: ... >> >> So the Netapp filer is clearly doing the wrong thing, as we doesn't >> send >> CB_LAYOUTRECALL. But I'm far from convinced that Linux is doing the >> right thing by replying NFS4ERR_NOMATCHING_LAYOUT. >> >> However, I'm not going to try to "fix" anything here. Hopefully we >> can >> manage to stumble forward. >> > > Please see RFC5661, Section 12.5.5.1 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc566 > 1#section-12.5.5.1 > > That section has a full documentation of what the server should > interpret NFS4ERR_NOMATCHING_LAYOUT to mean, and should explain why the > Linux client behaviour is quite correct w.r.t. the spec. > There are a couple of errata to consider too, but they mainly try to > nail down the expected behaviour for a couple of corner cases. Thanks for that. The last too sentences to suggest that NFS4ERR_NOMATCHING_LAYOUT isn't really an error, and the whole discusses how the server and client can reasonably have different understandings of the current set of layouts. Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
