Subject: RE: [nfsv4] Comments on issue 108 text.

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:58:28 -0400

I thought I saw something in the text that disallowed multiple
overlapping recalls at the same time, but I went back and looked
for it and didn't see it, so I guess I was wrong.

I think the text for 108 can go in as is.

-----Original Message-----
From: Goodson, Garth 
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:58 PM
To: Noveck, Dave
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Comments on issue 108 text.

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:
> 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

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

---

From: Benny Halevy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:25:04 +0300

I couldn't figure out what you meant either
so I'm glad it turned out to be a mistake.

Thanks.

Benny