From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 15 15:26:51 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9A616A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:26:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D52A643D1D
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:26:50 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie)
Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP
          id <aa06400@salmon>; 15 Oct 2004 16:26:48 +0100 (BST)
To: Peter Edwards <peadar.edwards@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:23:33 BST."
             <34cb7c840410150723733bca5a@mail.gmail.com> 
X-Request-Do: 
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:26:48 +0100
From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <200410151626.aa06400@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
cc: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>
Subject: Re: NFS + VM question 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:26:52 -0000

> > Since the server could actually hand out different content depending
> > on the mount instance, I don't think the NFS client could make these
> > assumptions. 

> Maybe I'm missing something,  but I'm not convinced that's true.
> NFS is "file-handle" centric: there's no real concept of a "mount
> point" at the server: the mount operation just  gives you a handle to
> the root directory, so if the two mounts from a server give the same
> file handles to a client, then the results should be consistent.

Yep - I guess you're right - I was thinking that the mountd could
be evil and hand out different file handles for the root directory
after each mount. If the caching was hung off the file handle and
identity of the client&server, then you could probably cache this
sort of thing safely.

	David.