From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Robert Rappaport" Subject: Re: File system awareness (or lack thereof) of vfs granting of leases Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:08:11 -0500 Message-ID: References: <45D6937A.10902@redhat.com> <20070218063948.GC22022@fieldses.org> <20070220163339.GA342@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Wendy Cheng" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.185]:35764 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965089AbXBTTIN (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:08:13 -0500 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id o25so2824075nfa for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:08:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20070220163339.GA342@fieldses.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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 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. >