Re: File system awareness (or lack thereof) of vfs granting of leases

["Robert Rappaport" <robert.rappaport@gmail.com>]

Bruce,

After looking more carefully at your changes, I have a question.  Why
didn't you modify the linux kernel routine, setlease(), so that it
would either call f_op->set_lease() or __setlease()?  Instead you
created a new routine, nfs4_setlease(), and you modified the previous
calls to setlease() in nfs4 to now call nfs4_setlease.

- Robert Rappaport

On 2/20/07, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 10:46:51AM -0500, Robert Rappaport wrote:
> > >We also have the same problem with leases, since we're using leases to
> > >implement NFSv4 delegations.  There's a simple-minded patch here:
> > >
> > >        http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=bfields-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=4e8aff5dabe07b2e4e95ef0c741a34f65409087f
> > >
> > >I'm not really sure if it's right.
> >
> > Thank you both for your helpful replies.  In particular, the addition
> > of the calls to file system specific functions in routines,
> > fcntl_setlease() and break_lease(), as well as the modifications to
> > the file_operations and inode_operations structures, pointed to by
> > Bruce's reply, look exactly like the hooks that I would need to
> > proceed to resolve my problems.  Is there any timetable established
> > for these modifications to make it into a future release?  These hooks
> > would clearly benefit any cluster file system that has to deal with
> > leases.
>
> We've been concentrating on the posix locks problem first, but that may
> be done in time for 2.6.22.
>
> If someone wants to help--we'll need to figure out how to implement this
> for gfs2 and/or ocfs2.  And any review or testing (e.g. with Samba)
> would be helpful.
>
> --b.
>