Re: layout return - final update ?

> On Feb 29, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> > Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 15:30 -0500, david.noveck@... wrote:
> >>>> Previously what we discussed was the last CLOSE for the
> >>>> file/client
> >>> pair.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> OK, but the proposed text you supplied is not clear on that point.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> That said, I'm not sure about multiple filehandles representing
> >>>> the
> >>> same file.
> >>>
> >>> Another issue that needs to be clarified in the text.
> >>
> >> We should do the same as we do for other state: LAYOUTs for
> >> different
> >> filehandles should be represented by different stateids and should
> >> not
> >> be combined.
> >>
> >> IOW: since you can't choose to CLOSE the file using either
> >> filehandle,
> >> but MUST use the filehandle that you received when you did the
> >> OPEN, I
> >> suggest that we extend that principle to layouts too.
> >>
> > Isn't it also possible to have multiple OPENs for the same FH, but
> > different open_owner4's?
> >
> > (Just fyi, this doesn't affect the FreeBSD
> > client much, since it holds onto all OPENs for a given FH until all
> > of the file descriptors are closed and the CLOSEes them all at the
> > same time. As such, the layout can be returned at that time, if any
> > case of return_on_closed == true has been received for the layout.)
>
> Yes, the fact that you can have several open_owners for the same
> filehandle does affect the 'last closer' issue. I'm not denying that
> is a complication, however I believe that the multiple filehandles
> issue is easily solvable thanks to the precedent that we already have
> for all the other existing state (open/lock state and delegation
> state).
>