From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 5 20:24:35 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4895106567D for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:24:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zachary.loafman@isilon.com) Received: from seaxch10.isilon.com (seaxch10.isilon.com [74.85.160.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A0C8FC0A for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:24:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zachary.loafman@isilon.com) Received: from famine.isilon.com ([10.54.190.95]) by seaxch10.isilon.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:12:35 -0700 Received: from zloafman by famine.isilon.com with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LqYg4-0007hw-Kl; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:10:48 -0700 Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:10:48 -0700 From: zachary.loafman@isilon.com To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20090405201048.GB6319@isilon.com> References: <20080412021209.W43186@desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2009 20:12:35.0136 (UTC) FILETIME=[DBEC7C00:01C9B62A] Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VOP_LEASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:24:36 -0000 On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Jeff Roberson wrote: > >> As far as I can tell this has never been used. Unless someone can show >> me otherwise I'm going to go ahead and remove it. > > (A year, +/- one week, passes...) > > Since we now have an NFSv4 client/server and it doesn't use VOP_LEASE, > and NQNFS is long-gone, I propose we revisit removing VOP_LEASE [...] I haven't had a chance to dig into the code, but can you explain how the v4 server is granting delegations without something like VOP_LEASE? This was actually a conversation I was going to prep for prior to BSDcan. We already have a cluster-coherent oplock mechanism for CIFS, and we were planning on trying to hook that in with v4 delegations, but our FS very much needs VOP calls to accomplish things like delegations. We can't use a local lease manager. Like I said, I need to look at code; it's very likely the existing VOP_LEASE isn't right for us, anyways. -- Zach Loafman | Staff Engineer | Isilon Systems