Subject: RE: [nfsv4] (no subject)

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:55:46 -0700

Why do you say the new_lock_owner bit is not part of the
interface?  It has to come over the wire or else, as
you point out, you can't interpret what follows.  I'm
sure I've seen it (the new_lock_owner bit) in network traces.  
It's there.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald E Bretschneider [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nfsv4] (no subject)

Perhaps you can help me understand this, I am confused.
   The NFS V4 lock interface contains the locker4 structure which is
switched based on a bit new_lock_owner.  The client will use some test to
determine whether it has presented this lockowner to the server.  Perhaps
this test is in the form of "if this is the first lock request from this
user-process for this open".  If it has not presented this lockowner to the
server, it builds the open_to_lock_owner4 structure, otherwise it builds
the exist_lock_owner4 structure.
   However, on the server side, my locking code needs to determine what the
format of the locker4 structure is. Certainly if the new_lock_owner bit was
part of the interface, I would know the format. But it does not seem that
this bit is a parameter in the interface. Certainly if I could look at the
lock_owner value which was being passed, I could know whether I had seen
this lock owner previously, but to look at this field, I would already have
to know the format. I could even infer the format if the lock_stateid and
the open_stateid values were at the same offset in the structure (I might
have a flag in the stateid which differentiated open and lock stateids),
but  they are at different offsets in the structure.
   So, what is it that I am missing? How does my server lock code know the
format of the locker4 structure?

thanks,
Ron

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

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

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:58:05 -0700

All XDR unions require a discriminant and the XDR encoding of unions
always includes the discriminant.

Nico