Subject: RE: open and lock sequence numbers

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 03:59:30 -0800

> I would like to hear understanding of other implementers 
> of open and lock sequence numbers

It would be really nice if everyone had the same interpretation.

> As I understand the protocol, there are sets of "open owners" and
> "lock owners". Any "open owner" could have any subset of "lock owners"
> and any "lock owner" could belong to any "open owner"

I don't think lockowners "belong" to openowners.  They are
conceptually independent.  I agree that an openowner can be
used (to construct a lock stateid) by any subset of the 
lockowners.  Conversely, a given a lockowner can be used
with any subset of the openowners.  The only restriction is
that the openowner and the lockowner must belong to the same
client and that is inherent in the protocol requests.

> 1. Is open sequence number per "open owner" or 
> "open owner + file" (opened by this open owner). 
> I would prefer "open owner + file"

I believe this is per-openowner.  I don't think openowner+file
would work since the sequence number has to appear in the 
OPEN request and, at the time the client issues the OPEN,
he may not know whether the file he is opening is one he
has opened before and, if so, which one. 

Or are you referring to the sequence within the stateid?
I think this is per-(openowner+file). 

> 2. Is lock sequence numbers is per "lock owner" or
> "lock owner + file" or
> "open owner + lock owner + file"
> I would prefer "open owner + lock owner + file".

I have this as per-lockowner (and without file).  Other
choices are possible but that's the way I interpret the 
spec.

The stateid (and thus the sequence within it) is per-
openowner+lockowner+file, at least in my server.

---

From: "Sergey Klyushin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:45:34 -0500

I looked through the mailing list and could not find description
of RELEASE_STATE locking type.
Could somebody explain this locking type?

Thanks,
Sergey