RE: 32-bit servers and lock requests

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Noveck, Dave (Dave.Noveck@netapp.com)
Date: 08/09/02-02:04:13 PM Z


Message-ID: <8C610D86AF6CD4119C9800B0D0499E336A9005@red.nane.netapp.com>
From: "Noveck, Dave" <Dave.Noveck@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: 32-bit servers and lock requests 
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:04:13 -0700 

That's better.

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.kupfer@sun.com [mailto:mike.kupfer@sun.com]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:03 PM
To: Noveck, Dave
Cc: spencer.shepler@sun.com; nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Subject: Re: 32-bit servers and lock requests 


>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Noveck <Noveck> writes:

    Dave> How about:

    Dave>     Some servers may only support locking for byte offsets
    Dave>     that fit within 32 bits.  If the client specifies a
    Dave>     range that includes a byte beyond the last byte offset
    Dave>     of the the 32-bit range, but does not include the last
    Dave>     byte offset of the 32-bit and all of the byte offsets
    Dave>     beyond it, up to the end of the valid 64-bit range, the
    Dave>     error NFS4ERR_BAD_RANGE will result.

It's a little ambiguous as to whether only 32-bit servers will return
BAD_RANGE (as opposed to all servers returning BAD_RANGE in order to
make the world safe for 32-bit servers).  How about changing the last
two lines to

     beyond it, up to the end of the valid 64-bit range, such a 32-bit
     server MUST return the error NFS4ERR_BAD_RANGE.

mike


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:50:11 AM Z CST