From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Whitehouse Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] gfs2: stop giving out non-cluster-coherent leases Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:18:07 +0100 Message-ID: <1181398687.25918.278.camel@quoit> References: <20070607170557.GA14463@fieldses.org> <11813408953536-git-send-email-> <11813408952518-git-send-email-> <11813408951909-git-send-email-> <11813408954053-git-send-email-> <11813408951694-git-send-email-> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Trond Myklebust , David Teigland , Marc Eshel , Robert Rappaport To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:40310 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753941AbXFIOUb (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jun 2007 10:20:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <11813408951694-git-send-email-> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi, On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 18:14 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > From: Marc Eshel > > Since gfs2 can't prevent conflicting opens or leases on other nodes, we > probably shouldn't allow it to give out leases at all. > > Put the newly defined lease operation into use in gfs2 by turning off > lease, unless we're using the "nolock' locking module (in which case all > locking is local anyway). > > Signed-off-by: Marc Eshel In general it looks fine, but EAGAIN seems like an odd error to return when we really mean that this function isn't supported in cluster mode. Is that really the correct value for that? Steve.