On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:10:16AM -0500, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > Ok. I thought that because RFC1813 covers NLM operations that it is. Yeah, I don't see a harm to the occasional NLM question on the v4 working group list. It's a bit of an orphaned protocol, so there's not really any other implementation-independent forum. > I will extend this question to the Linux NFS mailing list as the > client implementation I'm interested is Linux. But that's fine too. I thought that LOCK/CANCEL race was one of the motivations for NFSv4, so... > >> Is there a solution or this is broken protocol? ... I'd always assumed the protocol was impossible to implement 100% correctly, though maybe there's some clever solution. > >> Should it be client's responsibility to notice that it received a LOCK > >> reply for which it wasn't waiting and always follow up with an UNLOCK? That would be tricky and still not handle all cases, I think. --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
