On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 05:44:54PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > Your mailer's not quoting right, it's a little hard for me to find your > replies. Wading in: > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:39:04PM +0000, Thomas Haynes wrote: > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 12:49 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > So I *think* the only correct options OK or FALSE_RETRY? > > > > It can’t be OK if the parameters to SEQUENCE differ. > > I'm getting that from: "When the replier detects a false retry, it is > permitted (but not always obligated) to return NFS4ERR_FALSE_RETRY in > response to the Sequence operation when it detects a false retry." I think you are agreeing with me that OK is not appropriate here? > > If i understand the following language, we're required to return > FALSE_RETRY in the case the rpc credentials of the caller map to > different principals, but not otherwise. This one drove me crazy: If a requester sent a Sequence operation with a slot ID and sequence ID that are in the reply cache but the replier detected that the retried request is not the same as the original request, including a retry that has different operations or different arguments in the operations from the original SEQUENCE is not special - both the compounds in this example only have the SEQUENCE op and they differ only in that in the first sa_cachethis is False and in the second it is True. So we have to return FALSE_SEQ_RETRY here... > > --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 -- 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
