From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: "Adamson, Andy" <William.Adamson@netapp.com>
Cc: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
"<linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RFC Avoid expired credential keys for buffered writes
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:57:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120913175754.GA6566@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7851A663D3BF5E41B9E166C2C7A42145102B4C9F@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:14:38PM +0000, Adamson, Andy wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 15:13 +0000, Adamson, Andy wrote:
> >> After doing more test verification, here are the reasons for the low watermark. Reason #2 is the strongest justification.
1 and 2 don't sound right. What exactly were the test failures?
The client and server's gss code already check the context expiry for
us--we don't want an extra check in an upper layer on the client.
The context *will* expire unexpectedly sometimes, and we do have to
handle that. (The server's clock could be a tad faster than the
server's, or the server could reboot, etc., etc.)
I agree with all the suggestions for trying to anticipate expiry in the
normal cases and preparing to minimize the damage, that's fine. But
once the expiry finally comes we should leave the existing mechanisms to
do their job.
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-13 17:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-06 19:54 [PATCH 0/4] RFC Avoid expired credential keys for buffered writes andros
2012-09-06 19:54 ` [PATCH 1/4] SUNRPC handle EKEYEXPIRED in call_refreshresult andros
2012-09-06 19:54 ` [PATCH 2/4] SUNRPC set gss gc_expiry to full lifetime andros
2012-09-06 19:54 ` [PATCH 3/4] SUNRPC new rpc_credops to test credential expiry andros
2012-09-06 19:54 ` [PATCH 4/4] NFS avoid expired credential keys for buffered writes andros
2012-09-07 1:36 ` [PATCH 0/4] RFC Avoid " Jim Rees
2012-09-10 18:57 ` Jeff Layton
2012-09-10 19:52 ` Adamson, Andy
2012-09-10 20:08 ` Jeff Layton
2012-09-12 15:13 ` Adamson, Andy
2012-09-12 15:21 ` Myklebust, Trond
2012-09-12 16:14 ` Adamson, Andy
2012-09-13 17:57 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2012-09-13 18:09 ` Myklebust, Trond
2012-09-13 18:21 ` J. Bruce Fields
2012-09-13 18:12 ` Adamson, Andy
2012-09-10 20:12 ` Myklebust, Trond
2012-09-10 19:56 ` Jim Rees
2012-09-10 20:14 ` Myklebust, Trond
2012-09-10 21:03 ` Adamson, Andy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120913175754.GA6566@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=William.Adamson@netapp.com \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).