Re: [PATCH 0/2] NLM failover unlock

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:30:04AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2008, at 11:20 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 02:04:28PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
>>> Bob Bell wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:31:09AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
>>>>> This submission is part of the patch sets added to support NFS  
>>>>> server
>>>>> failover where the specified export is moved from one physical  
>>>>> server
>>>>> to another.
>>>>
>>>> Wendy,
>>>>
>>>> What's the current status of these patches?  I believe I have a
>>>> situation that could benefit from being able to release all NLM  
>>>> locks
>>>> on an exported filesystem.
>>>>
>>> I think Bruce has queued the unlock patch for 2.6.26 (Bruce ?) ..
>>
>> Not yet, for several reasons.  First, there's two smaller problems
>> outstanding that I can recall:
>>
>> 	- We should be matching on the superblock, not the vfs mount.
>> 	  Otherwise, for example, the unlock will have no effect if it's
>> 	  done from a private namespace, which I think will be
>> 	  unexpected.  Arguably this could result in revoking more locks
>> 	  than necessary, but if the goal is to allow unmounting some
>> 	  shared block device, then that's what we've got to do.
>> 	- Let's get the address types right.  I think the concensus from
>> 	  previous discussions was just to use in6_addr everywhere?
>
> I thought the consensus was use in_addr everywhere, and let me worry  
> about converting these to in6_addr as part of the NLM IPv6 work.

OK, that'd be fine too.

--b.