Hi folks, I have a question about recovery from the BAD_SEQID and what should happen. I have the following application that does: 1. open(file1) 2. open(file2) 3. close(file1) 4. open(file3) 5. lock(file2) If CLOSE gets BAD_SEQID (for whatever reason), I see that LOCK later fails with BAD_SEQID as well. step1 OPEN creates open_owner1 seq 0 step2 OPEN uses open_owner1 seq1 step3 CLOSE uses open_owner1 seq2 gets BAD_SEQID step4 OPEN sends new open_owner2 seq2 and it triggers OPEN_CONFIRM with seq3 step5 sends LOCK with seq4 and open stateid from the reply in step 2. LOCK gets BAD_SEQID. Question: is client sending something incorrect? is server not correct? I tested against two different servers (Linux and NetApp) and both reply the same way so I'm leaning towards "no". But I don't see why "seq4" is not a valid sequence given that the open_owner/sequence was just confirmed. Thanks. -- 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
