From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [nfsv4] RE: Finding hardlinks Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:47:20 +0100 Message-ID: <1167907640.6046.44.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <20061221185850.GA16807@delft.aura.cs.cmu.edu> <1166869106.3281.587.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <4593890C.8030207@panasas.com> <4593C524.8070209@poochiereds.net> <4593DEF8.5020609@panasas.com> <1167388129.6106.45.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1167780097.6090.104.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <459BA30A.4020809@panasas.com> <1167899796.6046.11.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <459CD11E.3000200@panasas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mikulas Patocka , Jan Harkes , Miklos Szeredi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , Arjan van de Ven Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]:40800 "EHLO pat.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932375AbXADKrm (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jan 2007 05:47:42 -0500 To: Benny Halevy In-Reply-To: <459CD11E.3000200@panasas.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:04 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: > I agree that the way the client implements its cache is out of the protocol > scope. But how do you interpret "correct behavior" in section 4.2.1? > "Clients MUST use filehandle comparisons only to improve performance, not for correct behavior. All clients need to be prepared for situations in which it cannot be determined whether two filehandles denote the same object and in such cases, avoid making invalid assumptions which might cause incorrect behavior." > Don't you consider data corruption due to cache inconsistency an incorrect behavior? Exactly where do you see us violating the close-to-open cache consistency guarantees? Trond