On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:30:04AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Feb 15, 2008, at 11:20 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 02:04:28PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote: >>> Bob Bell wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:31:09AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote: >>>>> This submission is part of the patch sets added to support NFS >>>>> server >>>>> failover where the specified export is moved from one physical >>>>> server >>>>> to another. >>>> >>>> Wendy, >>>> >>>> What's the current status of these patches? I believe I have a >>>> situation that could benefit from being able to release all NLM >>>> locks >>>> on an exported filesystem. >>>> >>> I think Bruce has queued the unlock patch for 2.6.26 (Bruce ?) .. >> >> Not yet, for several reasons. First, there's two smaller problems >> outstanding that I can recall: >> >> - We should be matching on the superblock, not the vfs mount. >> Otherwise, for example, the unlock will have no effect if it's >> done from a private namespace, which I think will be >> unexpected. Arguably this could result in revoking more locks >> than necessary, but if the goal is to allow unmounting some >> shared block device, then that's what we've got to do. >> - Let's get the address types right. I think the concensus from >> previous discussions was just to use in6_addr everywhere? > > I thought the consensus was use in_addr everywhere, and let me worry > about converting these to in6_addr as part of the NLM IPv6 work.
OK, that'd be fine too. --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
