It's legal, but dumb...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Matt W. Benjamin [mailto:m...@linuxbox.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:28 AM > To: Myklebust, Trond > Cc: David Wysochanski; Dave Chiluk; linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linux- > ker...@vger.kernel.org; bfie...@fieldses.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFSv4: Use exponential backoff delay for Ni > > Hi, > > Just to clarify, the IBM delay behavior is not legal? > > Matt > > ----- "Trond Myklebust" <trond.mykleb...@netapp.com> wrote: > > > > > OK, then. Now all I need is actual motivation for changing the > > existing code other than handwaving arguments about "polling is better > > than flat waits". > > What actual use cases are impacting us now, other than the AIX design > > decision to force CLOSE to retry at least once before succeeding? > > > > > -- > Matt Benjamin > The Linux Box > 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 > Ann Arbor, MI 48104 > > http://linuxbox.com > > tel. 734-761-4689 > fax. 734-769-8938 > cel. 734-216-5309 N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a��� 0��h���i
