From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="NwnXKNMq" Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::133]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F332BD4B for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 05:09:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=pshlG/ligFC3SogVXAgvzFoPKpHGsgj01FPvrJM8Hhs=; b=NwnXKNMqKbb8/6H93AE5QmyPwH g7NPryLcu+hKXy3t/13Pg5jnNGom3SxJqHClWJ/g5xx6ShQGezXr/7IOE3ypItBHSrb2DiFQJNLrA XChUQcCcYcuvk/Jo2CPsf+/xUZGhkff8jGJrIeZt37F0jzH4Exgm5bGpw4igrPvvqpcIqBFT2ER6S K14f4G2+vddICFFuovGIAilwb/MCw0XZebTd1Joe1X582pqztSxPny1ncTm0H5ZawdNTJzLVDw1k0 WNjXk+UdhNPcHhrNne4n2ji2GdnVBvi9FJ1zrmgYxUZoLLR3E00QAS/yXq2KYsk3WwhgQkbrPAs5z tgG08Rcw==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1r7xpp-005MHD-0L; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:09:05 +0000 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 05:09:05 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Rick Macklem Cc: Chuck Lever III , Christoph Hellwig , Tao Lyu , Trond Myklebust , Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: Question about O_APPEND | O_DIRECT Message-ID: References: <2d948b43fa625952e50589e4bedf9551df7ee112.camel@hammerspace.com> <7d2d17e4d3904d29b75fadcfd916b2a3@epfl.ch> <7E2914D2-B9AB-4280-9A44-875DA8B58328@oracle.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 05:50:49PM -0800, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > Well, it does support O_RDWR|O_APPEND, just not with O_DIRECT? > > > > > > Btw, I think an APPEND operation in NFS would be a very good idea, and > > > I'd love to work with interested parties in the IETF on it. > It is not easy to deal with w.r.t. RPC retries. Indeed. > I suppose a NFSv4.2 extension that either requires (or strongly > recommends) persistent sessions might work? > (Persistent sessions should pretty well guarantee an RPC is not > redone on the server.) I guess so. That of course actually means we rely on a viable implementation of persistent sessions. The Linux server doesn't support them, and I'm not sure which servers actually do.