Re: [nfsv4] question on bulk recall text

["Mike Eisler" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, October 12, 2010 11:37 am, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 13:43 -0400, Benny Halevy wrote:
>> On 2010-10-12 12:59, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 12:19 -0400, Fred Isaman wrote:
>> >> The text for bulk recalls in 12.5.5.2.1.5 seems flawed:
>> >>
>> >>    Once a CB_LAYOUTRECALL of LAYOUTRECALL4_ALL is sent, the server
>> MUST
>> >>    NOT allow the client to use any layout stateid except for
>> >>    LAYOUTCOMMIT operations.  Once the client receives a
>> CB_LAYOUTRECALL
>> >>    of LAYOUTRECALL4_ALL, it MUST NOT use any layout stateid except
>> for
>> >>    LAYOUTCOMMIT operations.
>> >>
>> >> (similarly for LAYOUTRECALL4_FSID)
>> >>
>> >> My question: what stateid does the client use to send the required
>> LAYOUTRETURN?
>> >
>> > LAYOUTRETURN with a LAYOUTRETURN4_FSID or a LAYOUTRETURN4_ALL argument
>> > doesn't take a stateid.
>>
>> Right, but if the client wants to return individual layouts
>> in the process the question is still valid.
>> One reason to do that is to show progress while the client
>> is flushing its caches.
>
> LAYOUTCOMMIT should suffice to show progress, whereas LAYOUTRETURN with
> a LAYOUTRETURN4_FILE appears to be explicitly prohibited by the spec
> (and not just in the text that Fred quotes).

Correct, no point in a bulk recall if you can't have a bulk return.

-- 
Mike Eisler, Senior Technical Director, NetApp, 719 599 9026,
http://blogs.netapp.com/eislers_nfs_blog/