Re: [nfsv4] proposed change for RFC 8881 bis

[Rick Macklem <[e-mail]>]

Sounds fine to me, rick

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:39 AM Jeff Layton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I've been working on a draft implementation of directory delegations for
> the Linux client and server. RFC 8881 says in section 18.39.3:
>
> "The server may refuse to grant the delegation. In that case, the server
> will return NFS4ERR_DIRDELEG_UNAVAIL."
>
> ...and later:
>
> "If the server does not wish to honor the "want" or is not able to do
> so, it returns the error NFS4ERR_DIRDELEG_UNAVAIL."
>
> This behavior is straightforward to implement, but it seems sub-optimal
> to have the server return a hard error in these situations, since it
> will cause compound processing to abort. Acquiring a delegation is an
> optimization, and failure to get one ought not be fatal.
>
> Could we change it so that in either situation, we can have the server
> optionally return NFS4_OK + GDD4_UNAVAIL instead of
> NFS4ERR_DIRDELEG_UNAVAIL? That would allow later compound operations to
> proceed, and would be less expensive than having to redrive a whole RPC.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> I'm happy to draft up a proposed change if someone can point me in the
> right direction.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Jeff Layton <[e-mail]>