On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:23:42PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > To summarize a phone conversation from today: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:07:02PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote: > > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >> Would there be any advantage to enforcing that requirement in the > >> server? (For example, teaching nlm to reject any locking request for a > >> certain filesystem that wasn't sent to a certain server IP.) > >> > >> --b. > >> > > It is doable... could be added into the "resume" patch that is currently > > being tested (since the logic is so similar to the per-ip base grace > > period) that should be out for review no later than next Monday. > > > > However, as any new code added into the system, there are trade-off(s). > > I'm not sure we want to keep enhancing this too much though. > > Sure. And I don't want to make this terribly complicated. The patch > looks good, and solves a clear problem. That said, there are a few > related problems we'd like to solve: > > - We want to be able to move an export to a node with an already > active nfs server. Currently that requires restarting all of > nfsd on the target node. This is what I understand your next > patch fixes.
Maybe a silly question but what about using "exportfs -r" for this? -- Frank
