[NFS] [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/4 Revised] NLM - lock failover

[Jeff Layton]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 10:40:16PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday April 27, jlayton at poochiereds.net wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:00:13PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > > 
> > > So if you need that, then I think it really must be implemented by
> > > something a lot like
> > >    echo -n /path/name > /proc/fs/nfs/nlm_unlock_filesystem
> > > 
> > > This is something that we could possible teach "fuser -k" about - so
> > > it can effectively 'kill' that part of lockd that is accessing a given
> > > filesystem.  It is useful to failover, but definitely useful beyond
> > > failover.
> > 
> > Just a note that I posted a patch ~ a year ago that did precisely that. The
> > interface was a little bit different. I had userspace echoing in a dev_t
> > number, but it wouldn't be too hard to change it to use a pathname instead.
> > 
> > Subject was:
> > 
> >     [PATCH] lockd: add procfs control to cue lockd to release all locks on a device   
> > 
> > ...if anyone is interested in having me resurrect it.
> > 
> > -- Jeff
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/4/10/240
> 
> Looks like no-one ever replied.
> I probably didn't see it:  things on linux-kernel that don't have
> 'nfs' or 'raid' (or a few related strings) in the subject have at best
> an even chance of me seeing them.  I've just added 'lockd' to the list
> of important strings :-)
> 
> I would rather a path name, and would rather it came through the
> 'nfsd' filesystem, but those are fairly trivial changes.
> 
> nlm_traverse_files has changed a bit since then, but it should be
> easier to unlock based on filesystem with the current code
> (especially if we made the first arg a void*..).
> 
> NeilBrown
> 

Ok, I'll toss cleaning that patch up and reposting it on to my to-do list...

Wendy, it seems like you had some objection to this patch at the time, but
the nature of it escapes me. Do you recall what your concern with it was?

Thanks,
Jeff