Subject: RE: [nfsv4] more re: ReleaseLockOwner

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:20:34 -0700

> >>>>> " " == Dave Noveck <Noveck> writes:
> 
>     > That sounds right to me.  It just doesn't seem that
>     > relationship between open owners and lock owners is then
>     > hierarchical as it seems to be presented above.

> Isn't it correct, though, to say that the relationship between
> open and lock stateids _is_ hierarchical?

Yes.

> IOW: The lock_owner and open_owners are both subordinate to a
> clientid, but they are otherwise completely independent of one
> another. I, the client, can mix and match open_owners and lock_owners
> according to whim...

That's my understanding and that's what I've implemented (or perhaps
I should say intended to implement -- We'll see at the bakeoff).

> However once I've opened a file and are want to lock a byte range,
> the lock stateid is instantiated as being subordinate to the open
> stateid by means of the open_to_lock_owner4.

Yes.

> When I CLOSE the open_owner, I can no longer be holding any locks that
> were created using those lock stateids that are subordinate to it.

You shouldn't.  The server may free them for you but if he doesn't
support that, you will get an error if any such locks exist. 

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:09:06 -0500

> support that, you will get an error if any such locks exist. 

Trond's statements are correct and are what is implemented in the
Solaris server.

Spencer

btw: sorry for being behind on this thread; on vacation and then
catching up on email.