Subject: [nfsv4] re: clarification of open_owner/lock_owner

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:08:10 -0500 (EST)

Since my name was in lower case only and Dave's capitalized, he's
definitely the right guy to answer this:-) But given that a bunch of
it was typed by me some day, long long ago, I'll take a stab at it.

> However, I have a question regarding the final diagram quoted below.
> It appears there are two different seqence numbers associated with the
> LockOwner "P1".  Are these in fact two different lock_owners with
> different sequence streams (which just happen to share the same name,
> but can be distinguished by association with different opens), or are
> they the same lock_owner for which the server needs to enforce a
> single sequence number stream.

I believe that these had to be assumed to be separate lock_owners with
separate sequence streams, since the last para. of 14.2.10 stated that
open_to_lock_owner was used for "new lock owners without an established
sequence".

My vague recollection is that the discussion centered around that pesky
para in 14.2.2, which starts with:
	If record locks are held, the close SHOULD...
which implies that record locks must be associated with an open_stateid.

If you didn't use a separate open_to_lock_owner4 (which creates a separate
lock_owner that might just have the same name), then all the locks become
associated with the open_stateid for the open of "a". This didn't seem to
make much sense for locks on "b"?

I think that a clarification on the relationship between Opens and locks
would be nice, but doubt a small errata change to the RFC would do it?

Make sense? rick

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