On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:29:43PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > That wasn't my thinking here. > > Suppose we have a client that holds some locks. Server reboots and we do > EXCHANGE_ID and start reclaiming, and eventually send a > RECLAIM_COMPLETE. > > Now, there is a network partition and we lose contact with the server > for more than a lease period. The client record gets tossed out. Client > eventually reestablishes the connection before the grace period ends and > attempts to reclaim. > > That reclaim should succeed, IMO, as there is no reason that it > shouldn't. Nothing can have claimed competing state since we're still in > the grace period. That scenario requires a grace period longer than the lease period, which isn't impossible but sounds rare? I guess you're thinking in the cluster case about the possibility of a second node failure extending the grace period. Still, that's different from the case where the client explicitly destroys its own state. That could happen in less than a lease period and in that case there won't be a reclaim. I think that case could happen if a client rebooted quickly or maybe just unmounted. Hm. --b.
