Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Re: [PATCH 9 of 16] nfsd4: relax new lock seqid check

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:34:49 -0500 (EST)

> that is correct, only for lock owners.

Since "lock_owner" is used throughout Sec. 8 to refer to both
open_owner4 and lock_owner4 related activity, I could argue that
the rule should apply to both, if it is applied at all.

Having said that, I once had the check in my server and removed it
when it caused grief for some test client (can't remember when or which one).

I also agree with those who feel that any initial value is ok. (If the
initial value was required to be 1, there would be no point in specifying
a lock_seqid in the open_to_lock_owner4 structure, as far as I can see?)

So, my server doesn't check it and I don't think the check should be
required, rick.

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

---

From: Trond Myklebust <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:51:08 -0500

> the rule should apply to both, if it is applied at all.

8-) That interpretation would conflict with section 8.1.8. which states
that "Since the OPEN_CONFIRM sequence connects a new open_owner on the
server with an existing open_owner on a client, the sequence number may
have any value."

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Cheers
  Trond

---

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:03:22 -0500

> Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

I think Rick's just arguing that this is evidence that the problematic
sentence in 8.1.5 is a mistake, since the surrounding text clearly
implies it's meant to cover the generic case of open and lock owners,
and since it clearly doesn't apply in that generality.

--b.