From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 24 14:15:46 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7D4106566C; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:15:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCD68FC33; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:15:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 094FB46B8A; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:15:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6E4D18A029; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:15:44 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Rick Macklem Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:06:23 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (FreeBSD/7.3-CBSD-20100217; KDE/4.3.1; amd64; ; ) References: <4BA3613F.4070606@comcast.net> <201003231027.25874.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201003241006.23347.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:15:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, bseklecki@noc.cfi.pgh.pa.us, User Questions Subject: Re: FreeBSD NFS client goes into infinite retry loop X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:15:46 -0000 On Tuesday 23 March 2010 7:03:06 pm Rick Macklem wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > Ah, I had read that patch as being a temporary testing hack. If you think > > that would be a good approach in general that would be ok with me. > > > Well, it kinda was. I wasn't betting on it fixing the problem, but since > it does... > > I think just mapping VFS_FHTOVP() errors to ESTALE is ok. Do you think > I should ask pjd@ about it or just go ahead with a commit? Go ahead and fix it I think. -- John Baldwin