From: Spencer Shepler (shepler@eng.sun.com)
Date: 08/16/02-07:03:50 PM Z
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:03:50 -0500 From: Spencer Shepler <shepler@eng.sun.com> Subject: Re: questions and comments on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-02-03.txt Message-ID: <20020817000350.GS100487@dhcp-uaus08-128-212.sun.com> On Fri, Mike Eisler wrote: > > > > Regarding, > > > > > > Even though CLOSE returns a stateid, this stateid is not useful to > > > the client and should be treated as deprecated. CLOSE "shuts down" > > > the state associated with all OPENs for the file by a single > > > open_owner. As noted above, CLOSE will either release all file > > > locking state or return an error. Therefore, the stateid returned > > > by CLOSE is not useful for operations that follow. > > > > > > Given that there is a seqid field in the stateid, is the > > > above paragraph still true? > > > > I think it is. Is there a particualr case in which you were thinking it > > might be useful? > > > > My thought was the perhaps the seqid field in the CLOSE would be > one higher than before and so this would affect the sequence number used > in other operations that use stateids. But I claim ignorance. The stateid returned on CLOSE will have no effect on other stateids used since CLOSE does end the sequence of state operations for the openowner-file relationship. -- Spencer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:50:14 AM Z CST