Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 07:59:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: d@delphij.net, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux NFSv4 clients are getting (bad sequence-id error!) Message-ID: <1022558302.2863702.1435838360534.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <5594B008.10202@freebsd.org> References: <CANzjMX45QaC8yZx2nHPAohJRvQjmUOHuhMQWP9nX%2BsrJs707Hg@mail.gmail.com> <684628776.2772174.1435793776748.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <CANzjMX7xKBvnzJhQhB_ZrUnyE2m_FJXXy4fm_RFnuZfBDyDm2A@mail.gmail.com> <55947C6E.5060409@delphij.net> <1491630362.2785531.1435799383802.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <5594B008.10202@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > On 7/2/15 9:09 AM, Rick Macklem wrote: > > I am going to post to nfsv4@ietf.org to see what they say. Please > > let me know if Xin Li's patch resolves your problem, even though I > > don't believe it is correct except for the UINT32_MAX case. Good > > luck with it, rick > and please keep us all in the loop as to what they say! > > the general N+2 bit sounds like bullshit to me.. its always N+1 in a > number field that has a > bit of slack at wrap time (probably due to some ambiguity in the > original spec). > Actually, since N is the lock op already done, N + 1 is the next lock operation in order. Since lock ops need to be strictly ordered, allowing N + 2 (which means N + 2 would be done before N + 1) makes no sense. I think the author of the RFC meant that N + 2 or greater fails, but it was poorly worded. I will pass along whatever I get from nfsv4@ietf.org. (There is an archive of it somewhere, but I can't remember where.;-) rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1022558302.2863702.1435838360534.JavaMail.zimbra>