From: David Robinson (David.Robinson@sun.com)
Date: 01/23/03-11:20:59 AM Z
Message-Id: <200301231720.h0NHKxL23284@phys-hanwk16-1.ebay.sun.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:20:59 -0600 (CST) From: David Robinson <David.Robinson@sun.com> Subject: Re: NFSv4 Advisory vs. Mandatory locking issues > The NFSv4 protocol does not support or restrict the use of non-standard NFS > implementations to satisfy customer solutions. As a clarification, non-standard implementations are by definition not "NFSv4" and should not be called NFSv4. This is a common confusion in the IETF, if you use the term NFSv4 it is standards conforming, anything else should have it's own name (e.g. Bob's FS). Otherwise there is no way to distinguish between an implementation that has changed just one required feature and another that is loosely based on NFSv4 (think DAFS). > My view may be narrow in this case, I assume the external behavior for > "implicit locking" is not agreed upon. There isn't any concept of "implicit locking" to be agreed upon. There is no requirement in the protocol for ordering or preventing interleaving between I/O requests. It is just that most server's implementations have inherent file systems semantics that provide per request atomicity. -David
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:50:47 AM Z CST