On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:43:22 -0500 Jeffrey Altman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> It occurred to me last night why the callback is not broken on the > >> last unlink . Because it is a wasted message. Breaking the callback > >> does not guarantee that the object will in fact be deleted on the > >> client in a timely manner because unlike with XCB there is no context > >> to say that it has in fact been deleted. > > > > ? It's "deleted on the client" as much as any callback break does; all > > of the cached information for that file would be discarded. > > > > It's not a waste, since the file has changed; the nlink count has gone > > to 0 and the contents are gone. > > The callback does not result in the client having this information. > The client only obtains this information when the client returns to > the file server to request it. And how does this make the callback break a waste? If the contents are gone, forgoing a callback break can (and does, as we've seen) result in inconsistent state between clients. > Go back and re-read this thread. Polling was brought up in discussion > yesterday in the exchanges between Troy and Simon. The last post I see from Simon is from Saturday. Post a link or a message-id or something? -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
