Linux NFSv4 clients are getting (bad sequence-id error!)

[Rick Macklem]

Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 7/2/15 9:09 AM, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > I am going to post to nfsv4 at ietf.org to see what they say. Please
> > let me know if Xin Li's patch resolves your problem, even though I
> > don't believe it is correct except for the UINT32_MAX case. Good
> > luck with it, rick
> and please keep us all in the loop as to what they say!
> 
> the general N+2 bit sounds like bullshit to me.. its always N+1 in a
> number field that has a
> bit of slack at wrap time (probably due to some ambiguity in the
> original spec).
> 
Actually, since N is the lock op already done, N + 1 is the next lock
operation in order. Since lock ops need to be strictly ordered, allowing
N + 2 (which means N + 2 would be done before N + 1) makes no sense.

I think the author of the RFC meant that N + 2 or greater fails, but it
was poorly worded.

I will pass along whatever I get from nfsv4 at ietf.org. (There is an archive
of it somewhere, but I can't remember where.;-)

rick