[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1321655828.10541.23.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:37:08 +0200
From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To: John Hughes <john@...vaedi.com>
Cc: Jim Rees <rees@...ch.edu>, John Hughes <john@...va.COM>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add "-e" option to rpc.gssd to allow error on ticket
expiry. Try 2 with added man pages.
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 23:33 +0100, John Hughes wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 10:03 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 15:57 -0500, Jim Rees wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The write() syscall doesn't indicate whether the data is safe or not. That
> >> would be the close() syscall.
> >>
> > fsync(). Which may succeed if the user renews their ticket first.
> > However you may still have data loss if dirty data has been lost because
> > of EKEYEXPIRED returns on the WRITE RPC call...
> >
> Only if the write(2) returned EKEYEXPIRED, surely,
What part of "write is asynchronous" is so hard to understand?
> > Also, for the fsync() to return EKEYEXPIRED _after_ the user has renewed
> > their ticket would seem counter-intuitive to most people.
> >
>
> I would want to know if data was lost.
>
> Intuition means nothing if I get an error.
>
> If it were possible I'd like:
>
> 1. write works
> 1a. WRITE RPC fails, data stays in cache
> 2. ticket renewed
> 3. fsync works, data written
Which is _exactly_ how it works today, so what is the problem?
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com
www.netapp.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists