On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:35 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
> I sincerely expect you or anybody else for this matter to try to provide
> feedback and object to the protocol specification in case they disagree
> with it (or think it's ambiguous or self contradicting) rather than ignoring
> it and implementing something else. I think we're shooting ourselves in the
> foot when doing so and it is in our common interest to strive to reach a
> realistic standard we can all comply with and interoperate with each other.
You are reading the protocol wrong in this case.
While the protocol does allow the server to implement the behaviour that
you've been advocating, it in no way mandates it. Nor does it mandate
that the client should gather files with the same (fsid,fileid) and
cache them together. Those are issues to do with _implementation_, and
are thus beyond the scope of the IETF.
In our case, the client will ignore the unique_handles attribute. It
will use filehandles as our inode cache identifier. It will not jump
through hoops to provide caching semantics that go beyond close-to-open
for servers that set unique_handles to "false".
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
