[nfsv4] Asking for details about OPEN_DOWNGRADE

[Mike Mackovitch]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 05:47:18PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 01:50:34PM -0700, Mike Mackovitch wrote:
> > > The share_access and share_deny bits specified in this operation
> > > replace the current ones for the specified open file.  The
> > > share_access and share_deny bits specified must be exactly equal to
> > > the union of the share_access and share_deny bits specified for some
> > > subset of the OPENs in effect for current openowner on the current
> > > file.
> > 
> > And, to me at least, the qualifier "subset of the OPENs in effect"
> > doesn't clearly say "the subset of the OPEN ops sent to the server".
> 
> That's "OPEN", not "open", and can only refer to the on-the-wire op, not

The OPEN description also uses "lockowner" where it should be "open owner".
So, clearly, details like this can't always be taken verbatim.
And with the other text talking about upgrades and how the state on
the server is an "OR"ed-together status, I (obviously incorrectly)
concluded that it was not referring to distinct OPEN ops.

> Do you find the 4.1 language clearer?

Not really... but it's really too late to affect it.

My hope is that this information will at least be in the NFSv4 archives
for other implementers to find.... which is why I brought it up on the
list.

Note, that I am not arguing that it behave the way I (and others)
interpreted it.  I'm merely trying to describe the confusion and
get the consensus regarding the correct operation recorded somewhere.

Thanks
--macko