Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:44:03 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Adam McDougall <mcdouga9@egr.msu.edu>, mohans@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: link() not increasing link count on NFS server Message-ID: <86abp13yvw.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20071126125413.U65286@fledge.watson.org> (Robert Watson's message of "Mon\, 26 Nov 2007 12\:58\:23 %2B0000 \(GMT\)") References: <20071115074247.GQ37473@egr.msu.edu> <20071115123543.H82897@fledge.watson.org> <1195132320.6039.135.camel@hurina> <20071115135734.O82897@fledge.watson.org> <86ir3p4203.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20071126125413.U65286@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> writes: > While their workaround is better than our workaround, is there reason > to believe that a request is more likely to be dropped than a reply, > and that their workaround is therefore better than no workaround? I didn't read the whole thread before replying. I don't think the workaround is needed at all in FreeBSD. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86abp13yvw.fsf>