Hello Frank, On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Frank Filz <ffilz...@mindspring.com> wrote: > Is your FSAL able to differentiate lock owners? If your underlying > filesystem treats all of Ganesha as one lock owner, that will be an > unfortunate issue since I was hoping to remove the code that supports > maintaining a union of all range locks to the FSAL. > > If it can't be helped, obviously we have to find a way to keep that logic > still in the system.
Thanks for asking quesiton, Currently FSAL and filesystem don't have support for lock owners and we will need code to (May be in fsak_helper.) to support it. Please help me understanding this, For posix filesystems there will be still need to differentiate lock conflicts for same owner (even with OFD) and maintain owner + lock information. Because with fcntl we don't have way to specify owner. So what part of code you are planing to remove? are you saying this list will be maintained per owner + OFD in FSAL and hence support for OFD will become must. > > Support_ex can still be used, if you otherwise have no use for some kind of > resource per owner/per file, support_ex allows you to not allocate any > additional memory for the state_t, and you could just maintain a single > "global file descriptor" (or whatever resource you use to access files). > Is this global file descriptor should be maintained in similar sturct like vfs_locate_state? I expect it to work without mdcache. > If we go this way, I think the main thing that would have to change is to > still call lock_op2() in the no lock owner paths from SAL. > > Note that Open File Description Locks are not the only way to allow for > support_ex in its current incarnation: > > FSAL_GLUSTER and FSAL_GPFS use the state_t to pass the void *lockowner to > the filesystem. > > FSAL_PROXY would have a stateid associated with each state_t. > > I would also use this as an opportunity to strongly suggest folks working on > other FSALs make their code public. When we are making API changes, we can > really only address the needs of the FSALs we know about. > > Even if your FSAL is in a very primitive state, it could still be included > in tree (we would just disable it by default in CMakeLists.txt, with lots of > crime scene tape wrapped around it). Tushar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list Nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel
