From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 6 12:13:00 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 DDF7B106572F for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:13:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9ACE8FC0C for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:13:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58FCB46B90; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:13:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:13:00 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: zachary.loafman@isilon.com In-Reply-To: <20090405201048.GB6319@isilon.com> Message-ID: References: <20080412021209.W43186@desktop> <20090405201048.GB6319@isilon.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:13:01 -0000 On Sun, 5 Apr 2009, zachary.loafman@isilon.com wrote: > 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, Let me know if/when you're ready for the VOP_LEASE-axing to take place, and I'll move ahead with it. And we should perhaps add delegation/oplock/etc mechanisms to our agenda for the devsummit? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge