[nfsv4] Asking for details about OPEN_DOWNGRADE

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 03:11:35PM -0700, Mike Mackovitch wrote:
> 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.

It may be too late to actually change the requirement, if that's your
goal, but if it needs a little wordsmithing to make it clearer, I was
under the impression that was still possible?

--b.