Re: [nfsv4] possible minor corrections of federated-fs-admin-05

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:18 PM, James Lentini wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Chuck Lever wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 23, 2010, at 4:43 PM, James Lentini wrote:
>> 
> <snip> 
>>> Speaking of that, it doesn't appear that anyone proposed 
>>> names/definitions for those errors during the 9/2/10 FedFS meeting (if 
>>> there was a proposal, I apologize for leaving it out of the meeting 
>>> minutes). Do these definitions capture what we agreed to at that 
>>> meeting?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  FEDFS_ERR_NO_CACHE:  The fileserver does not implement an FSN-to-FSL
>>>     cache.
>>> 
>>>  FEDFS_ERR_UNKOWN_CACHE:  The software receiving the ONC RPC request
>>>     is unaware if the fileserver implements an FSN-to-FSL cache or
>>>     unable to communicate with the FSN-to-FSL cache if it exists.
>> 
>> Then FEDFS_OK MUST mean that the file server's cache now matches the 
>> results returned by FEDFS_LOOKUP_JUNCTION?
> 
> These error codes are for when FEDFS_LOOKUP_JUNCTION is called with 
> the FEDFS_RESOLVE_CACHE argument.

Ah.  That makes sense now.

> For the case you are asking about, when FEDFS_LOOKUP_JUNCTION is 
> called with the FEDFS_RESOLVE_NSDB argument, we'll need another error 
> code or another result value (as you suggest below).
> 
>> Are these new error codes returned with a FedFsFsl list, or are they 
>> returned with no results?
> 
> No results.
> 
>> It might make more sense to treat these like the returned 
>> ResolveType, instead of using them as the operation's result code, 
>> imo.
> 
> I was thinking of an error code to indicate that the NSDB resolution 
> was successful but the FSN-to-FSL cache was not updated 
> (FEDFS_NO_CACHE_UPDATE?). Something like this:
> 
>    /// struct FedFsLookupResOk {
>    ///         FedFsFsn               fsn;
>    ///         FedFsFsl               fsl<>;
>    /// };
>    ///
>    /// struct FedFsLookupResReferralVal {
>    ///         FedFsNsdbName          targetNsdb;
>    ///         unsigned int           ldapResultCode;
>    /// };
>    ///
>    /// union FedFsLookupRes switch (FedFsStatus status) {
>    ///  case FEDFS_OK:
>    ///  case FEDFS_ERR_NO_CACHE_UPDATE:
>    ///         FedFsLookupResOk           resok;
>    ///  case FEDFS_ERR_NSDB_LDAP_VAL:
>    ///         unsigned int               ldapResultCode;
>    ///  case FEDFS_ERR_NSDB_LDAP_REFERRAL:
>    ///  case FEDFS_ERR_NSDB_PARAMS_LDAP_REFERRAL:
>    ///         FedFsNsdbName              targetNsdb;
>    ///  case FEDFS_ERR_NSDB_LDAP_REFERRAL_VAL:
>    ///         FedFsLookupResReferralVal  resReferralVal;
>    ///  default:
>    ///         void;
>    /// };
> 

Sure, sounds reasonable.

-- 
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com