Subject: [nfsv4] re: NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and seqid

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:03:15 -0400 (EDT)

> In section 8.1.5, we have the following:
> 
>    The client MUST monotonically increment the sequence number for the
>    CLOSE, LOCK, LOCKU, OPEN, OPEN_CONFIRM, and OPEN_DOWNGRADE
>    operations.  This is true even in the event that the previous
>    operation that used the sequence number received an error.  The only
>    exception to this rule is if the previous operation received one of
>    the following errors: NFS4ERR_STALE_CLIENTID, NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID,
>    NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID, NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID, NFS4ERR_BADXDR,
>    NFS4ERR_RESOURCE, NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE.
> 
> It appears that NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID is missing from the list of errors
> that do not increment the sequence id.
> 
> Any objections to that interpretation?

My server currently does increment the seqid before returning
NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID. I can easily change that (it actually allows me
to delete some code for that special case), but I'd like to hear that
everyone is agreed first and that NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID is being added to the
list as an Errata change?

rick
ps: There are several other quirky cases I ran into, along with the above.
    You might find ftp://ftp.cis.uoguelph.ca/pub/nfsv4/Quirky.cases of
    interest.

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

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:34:03 -0500

> list as an Errata change?

I have had one offlist confirmation of my proposal and my intent is that
this will be listed in the errata (unless there is an opposing opinion
not yet expressed).