Re: [nfsv4] NFS V4 OPEN delegation with CLAIM_DELEGATE_CUR
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> Sun, 04 July 2010 16:21 UTC
Return-Path: <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55263A6452 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cMitaA2M1pok for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out1.uio.no (mail-out1.uio.no [129.240.10.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6243A67A4 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by mail-out1.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>) id 1OVRwX-0004SG-BN; Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:21:21 +0200
Received: from c-68-40-206-115.hsd1.mi.comcast.net ([68.40.206.115] helo=[192.168.1.29]) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtpsa (SSLv3:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) user trondmy (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>) id 1OVRwW-0007So-JA; Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:21:21 +0200
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Jwu-Shyan Tarng <jstarng@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <OFB684E0DF.FD64C02B-ON87257756.000E66A1-88257756.000FBB17@us.ibm.com>
References: <F7E65964-7ED7-4152-B6B9-BC5A8C037CEF@gmail.com> <1278194481.2808.9.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <OFB684E0DF.FD64C02B-ON87257756.000E66A1-88257756.000FBB17@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:21:17 -0400
Message-ID: <1278260478.29898.10.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.2 (2.30.2-1.fc13)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 4 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 6 sum msgs/h 2 total rcpts 543 max rcpts/h 20 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 72D00F23FE3908D47E20E2F6FC74CAF6443C148D
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 68.40.206.115 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 243 max/h 6 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Cc: nfsv4 nfsv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] NFS V4 OPEN delegation with CLAIM_DELEGATE_CUR
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:21:22 -0000
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 19:51 -0700, Jwu-Shyan Tarng wrote: > Can someone help to answer the following questions? > > - Can the previous V4 OPEN with CLAIM=CLAIM_DELEGATE_CURimpact on > the later V4 OPEN delegation grant with different SHARE access > since CLAIM_DELEGATE_CURis done as part of recalling a delegation > based on RFC? > > - There is a test sequence in the following: > > 1 OPEN for Readwhich gets READ delegation with delegation stateid, > dstateid,andopen stateid, ostateid > 2 Read with dstateid. > - Expect NFS4_OK > 3 CLOSE with ostateid > - Expect NFS4_OK > 4 OPEN with CLAIM=CLAIM_DELEGATE_CURwith dstateid and get open > stateid, ostateid2, back. > Read with dstateid. > - Expect NFS4_OK > Read with ostateid2. > - Expect NFS4_OK > 5 OPEN for writefor this file (like OPEN upgrade) > Questions: > 1) Is the old dstateid still valid now? > If it is still valid, is this dstateid representing READ > delegation or WRITE delegation? > 2) Can this open for write get write delegation stateid besides open > stateid returned to > the client? > If there is no delegation stateid returned to the client, is there > any delegation existing > on the client side? According to section 9.4.4 of RFC3530, the OPEN for write won't succeed until the read delegation has been returned, so the answer is 1) no 2) yes Cheers Trond
- [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently schedule … Spencer
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Trond Myklebust
- [nfsv4] NFS V4 OPEN delegation with CLAIM_DELEGAT… Jwu-Shyan Tarng
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Sorin Faibish
- Re: [nfsv4] NFS V4 OPEN delegation with CLAIM_DEL… Rick Macklem
- Re: [nfsv4] NFS V4 OPEN delegation with CLAIM_DEL… Trond Myklebust
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Sorin Faibish
- Re: [nfsv4] NFS V4 OPEN delegation with CLAIM_DEL… Noveck_David
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Dean Hildebrand
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Noveck_David
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Dean Hildebrand
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Everhart, Craig
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… David P. Quigley
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… sfaibish
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Tom Haynes