Subject: [nfsv4] Comments on issue 108 text.

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:21:48 -0400

I intended this to go with the last message but hit send to quickly.
 
Anyway here are my comments on issue 108:
 
20.44.5 para 1: This seems to conflict with some text that I reviewed
for issue 103 (it may not have been changed but it was in the area) in
which it is said the client should return a recall-conflict error.  This
suggests that this OK.  We need to resolve this.  
_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Garth Goodson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:58:24 -0700

Looking at 103 (although quickly), the only thing I see is the following:

LAYOUTGET MUST be rejected with an error (i.e., NFS4ERR_RECALLCONFLICT) 
if there's an overlapping outstanding recall callback to the same client.

But this states that the server must reject the layoutget, not the 
client.  I didn't see anything suggesting a client sent back an error.

I did find this, but am not sure if the text is conflicting:

... if the client holds no layout segment that overlaps the range being 
recalled, the client should return the NFS4ERR_NOMATCHING_LAYOUT error code.

This suggests that if the client holds some part of a layout that 
overlaps with the recall it should return the entire range, otherwise it 
should return the error.

-Garth

Noveck, Dave wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>