Subject: lockowner-file pair

From: Mike Eisler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 03:39:28 -0800 (PST)

I would the document editor for draft-ietf-nfsv4-07.txt to
investigate the possibility of altering references to the phrase
"lockowner-file pair" to phrasing that makes it clear that stateids
refer to nfs_lockowners, not nfs_lockowner/file pairs.

I think this can be done in the 48 hour window the RFC editor
will given the document editor to fix stuff, and that this falls under
the classification of editorial change, especially since it will
not require re-formatting.

page 57

   o    The stateid was generated by the current server instance but the
        stateid no longer designates the current locking state for the
        lockowner-file pair in question (i.e. one or more locking
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        nfs_lockowner
        
        operations has occurred).  The error NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID should
        be returned.
        
[...]
   o    The stateid was generated by the current server instance but the
        stateid does not designate a locking state for any active
        lockowner-file pair.  The error NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID should be
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        nfs_lockowner

page 98

   NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID   A stateid generated by the current server
                         instance, but which does not designate any
                         locking state (either current or superseded)
                         for a current lockowner-file pair, was used.
                         	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                         	        nfs_lockowner

---

From: David Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 04:55:06 -0800

I think a more detailed explaination is needed than these minor
edits.  As originally intended, the stateid was indeed the
state for an nfs_lockowner and file pair.  If it is just
per file, it forces a synchronization point for all I/O
from that nfs_owner if any file changes state. It was intended
that for a particular file that a lock request would cause
synchronization, but it was not intended that other files
open by the same owner would be affected.

I suspect that there has been some terminology changes that
have lead to confusion.

	-David