[NFS] [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/4 Revised] NLM - lock failover

[J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:36:16AM -0400, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:17:10PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >  
> >>In fact couldn't this be treated as a reexport with a NFSEXP_ flag
> >>meaning drop all locks to avoid creating new interfaces?
> >>    
> >
> >Off hand, I can't see any reason why that wouldn't work.  The code to
> >handle it would probably go in fs/nfsd/export.c:svc_export_parse().
> >
> >  
> Sign :( ... folks, we go back to the loop again. That *was* my first 
> proposal ...

So you're talking about this and followups?:

	http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=115009204513790&w=2

I just took a look and couldn't find any complaints about that
approach.  Were they elsewhere?

I understand the frustration.  There's a balance betweeen on the one
hand, being willing to throw out some hard work and start over if
someone comes up with a real objection, and, on the other hand, sticking
to a design when you're convinced it's right.

I *really* appreciate good review, but I also try to avoid doing
something I don't like just because it seems to be the only way to make
somebody else happy....  If they've got a real point then I should be
able to understand it.  If not, then I risk doing all the work to make
them happy just to throw it away because I can't defend the approach in
the end, or because I find out I misunderstood their original point.

(Then again, sometimes I do just have to trust somebody.  And sometimes
I guess learning who can be trusted about what is part of the process.)

In this case I think the complaint about requiring fsid's on everything
is legimate, and the original approach of using the export was sensible.
But I haven't been paying as much attention as I should have, and I
probably missed something.

--b.