Re: [nfsv4] "Courtesy locks"

["J. Bruce Fields" <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:21:43PM -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
> The term "courtesy locks" is Trond's.  It refers to the practice of
> allowing locks associated with an expired lease to remain around, "as a
> courtesy to the client or as an optimization" (see section 8.6.3 or RFC
> 3530).  The text that is associated with this situation is not as clear
> or complete as it should be and a number of RFC3530bis issues are
> related to it.
> 
> In deciding how to address this, we need to find out what exactly
> clients and servers do.  A long while back I promised to send mail and
> gather up the requisite information, and now my promise has caught up
> with me.  If you can answer the following questions via email that would
> be great.  If not, I hope people will at least find out what their
> implementations do on these points so we discuss it at the upcoming
> bakeathon.
> 
> This looks pretty daunting but most people will probably say "Yes" to
> (S1) and/or easily deal with (C1), (C2), and (C3).
> 
> Make sure you use black pen and completely fill in the circles :-) 
> 
> 
> If you have a client and not a server, skip to (C1)

Talking about the Linux server:

> S1) When a lease expires, do you simply release all
>     the associated locks?

Yes.

>     If so, go to (C1), or if you don't have a client you 
>     are all done.

That was easy!

--b.