Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:10:48 -0700
From:      zachary.loafman@isilon.com
To:        Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: VOP_LEASE
Message-ID:  <20090405201048.GB6319@isilon.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904051829490.12639@fledge.watson.org>
References:  <20080412021209.W43186@desktop> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904051829490.12639@fledge.watson.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>
>> As far as I can tell this has never been used.  Unless someone can show 
>> me otherwise I'm going to go ahead and remove it.
>
> (A year, +/- one week, passes...)
>
> Since we now have an NFSv4 client/server and it doesn't use VOP_LEASE, 
> and NQNFS is long-gone, I propose we revisit removing VOP_LEASE [...]

I haven't had a chance to dig into the code, but can you explain how the
v4 server is granting delegations without something like VOP_LEASE? This
was actually a conversation I was going to prep for prior to BSDcan. We
already have a cluster-coherent oplock mechanism for CIFS, and we were
planning on trying to hook that in with v4 delegations, but our FS very
much needs VOP calls to accomplish things like delegations. We can't use
a local lease manager.

Like I said, I need to look at code; it's very likely the existing
VOP_LEASE isn't right for us, anyways.

-- 
Zach Loafman | Staff Engineer | Isilon Systems




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090405201048.GB6319>