On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:40:02AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Yes, saying only that it must be different is intentional. What we > really want is for consumers to treat this as an opaque value for the > most part [1]. Therefore an implementation based on hashing would > conform to the spec, I'd think, as long as all of the relevant info is > part of the hash. It'd conform, but it might not be as useful as an increasing value. E.g. a client can use that to work out which of a series of reordered write replies is the most recent, and I seem to recall that can prevent unnecessary invalidations in some cases. --b.
