Re: [PATCH 1/2] NLM failover unlock commands

[Frank van Maarseveen <frankvm@frankvm.com>]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:23:42PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> To summarize a phone conversation from today:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:07:02PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> > J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> Would there be any advantage to enforcing that requirement in the
> >> server?  (For example, teaching nlm to reject any locking request for a
> >> certain filesystem that wasn't sent to a certain server IP.)
> >>
> >> --b.
> >>   
> > It is doable... could be added into the "resume" patch that is currently  
> > being tested (since the logic is so similar to the per-ip base grace  
> > period) that should be out for review no later than next Monday.
> >
> > However, as any new code added into the system, there are trade-off(s).  
> > I'm not sure we want to keep enhancing this too much though.
> 
> Sure.  And I don't want to make this terribly complicated.  The patch
> looks good, and solves a clear problem.  That said, there are a few
> related problems we'd like to solve:
> 
> 	- We want to be able to move an export to a node with an already
> 	  active nfs server.  Currently that requires restarting all of
> 	  nfsd on the target node.  This is what I understand your next
> 	  patch fixes.

Maybe a silly question but what about using "exportfs -r" for this?

-- 
Frank