Re: [nfsv4] (no subject)

Next message: Spencer Shepler: "Re: [nfsv4] Thanks for NFSERR_EXPIRED info"
Previous message: Noveck, Dave: "RE: [nfsv4] (no subject)"
In reply to: Noveck, Dave: "RE: [nfsv4] (no subject)"
Next in thread: Khan, Saadia: "RE: [nfsv4] (no subject)"

Nicolas.Williams@sun.com

From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] (no subject)
Message-ID: <20030707095805.A3522@binky.central.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:58:05 -0700

All XDR unions require a discriminant and the XDR encoding of unions
always includes the discriminant.

Nico

On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:55:46AM -0700, Noveck, Dave wrote:
> Why do you say the new_lock_owner bit is not part of the
> interface?  It has to come over the wire or else, as
> you point out, you can't interpret what follows.  I'm
> sure I've seen it (the new_lock_owner bit) in network traces.  
> It's there.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4