Subject: [nfsv4] blocks draft 01: operation issues

From: Garth Goodson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:42:52 -0700

I don't understand the following under operation issues:

       The LAYOUTCOMMIT operation appears to have some LAYOUTRETURN side
       effects.  This should be separated so that LAYOUTCOMMIT does not
       return any layout extents; the required LAYOUTRETURN can be in a
       compound immediately after the LAYOUTCOMMIT.

Questions:
- What side effects?

- How does LAYOUTCOMMIT return extents in the current proposal?

The way I view it, is that LAYOUTRETURN hands back the layout saying it 
is not going to be used anymore.  Since LAYOUTCOMMIT is for handling 
writes, mtime should be only set at LAYOUTCOMMIT time.  I could imagine 
atime being updated by LAYOUTRETURN, but only if it was a hint (similar 
to the way time is updated by LAYOUTCOMMIT).  SETATTR should be used to 
explicitly set any times.

-Garth

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:35:34 -0400

> - How does LAYOUTCOMMIT return extents in the current proposal?

I thought I saw text in an older version that enabled extent return
via LAYOUTCOMMIT - whatever the text at issue was, it's not in the
current -03 version.  My primary concern was server tracking of client
response to recalls - the tracking should only involve LAYOUTRETURN
ops.  I'll go take that issue out of my working version of the pNFS
blocks draft.

> explicitly set any times.

Seems ok.  My primary concern was server tracking of client response
to a recall - the tracking should only involve LAYOUTRETURN ops.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------