Subject: [nfsv4] (no subject)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:43:50 -0400 (EDT)

> It would likely ease the client implementation if it could count on the 
> server returning a different stateid (seqid++) at each state changing
> operation.  Is there interest in enforcing this stateid behavior so
> the client's can have multiple OPENs in flight?

I believe this is what my server currently does and was what I understood
it was supposed to do with the seqid field of the open_stateid, so it
sounds fine to me.

rick
ps: Oh, and it turns out my server doesn't compare the open_owner name
    when it checks for open DENY_xxx conflicts, so it seems to conform
    to the RFC on that one.

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