From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Eliminating the BKL from the NFS and RPC clients Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:33:14 +0000 Message-ID: <20070120093314.GA29643@infradead.org> References: <45B00585.10001@oracle.com> <20070119012349.GA25491@infradead.org> <1169184980.6158.19.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H8CbW-00024R-8U for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:33:42 -0800 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1H8CbW-0007kx-RK for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:33:44 -0800 To: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: <1169184980.6158.19.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:36:20AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > No. Attributes may change at any moment on the server. That is _very_ > different to the case where the user or the client changes the > attributes via setattr. For one thing, we don't have to notify the > server. Secondly, we do want to be able to update those attributes from > asynchronous contexts (for instance when a WRITE request returns with > updated). > The client should in any case _never_ be overriding the server > attributes. The only exception to that rule is if we have cached writes > which change the file size. We do try to detect that... Sorry, my previous mail wasn't clear enough on how I want setattr used here. I think it's right to make all these attribute updates through ->setattr so filesystem can deal with them explicitly. Of course we'd still need to treat explicit updates different from implicit one, probably by adding in ATTR_IMPLIZIT for the later. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs