[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf-nfsv4
Subject:    RE: [nfsv4] Open with Claim_delegate_cur
From:       "Khan, Saadia" <Saadia.Khan () netapp ! com>
Date:       2003-12-01 6:14:57
Message-ID: 482A3FA0050D21419C269D13989C611302D223D8 () lavender-fe ! eng ! netapp ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

No it should not, since the client already has the delegation.

-----Original Message-----
From: rick@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca
[mailto:rick@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca]=20
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 12:18 PM
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: [nfsv4] Open with Claim_delegate_cur

Ok, I've become convinced that A was the correct answer to the last one,
unless I hear otherwise... So I figured I'd bug you all yet again.

My understanding of Open with Claim_delegate_cur is as follows:
- A client has an Open Delegation that wants to Delegreturn (most likely
  because of a CBRecall), but it needs an Open so that it can continue
  to do I/O etc. on the file, so:
  - It does an Open with Claim_delegate_cur to get the Open state(id).

Does this sound right?

So, for this case should my server return a delegation as well as Open?
- My current thinking was No, since the client already has the
delegation,
  but since my thinking was wrong on the last one, I figure I'd ask.
  (I can see the argument for it returning the Delegation the client
already
   has, in the reply, because otherwise the reply has Delegate_none in
it.)

Thanks yet again for any help, rick

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]