[AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

[Felix Frank]

Derrick Brashear wrote (Mon Jun 08 2009 13:10:26 GMT+0200 (CEST))
> On Monday, June 8, 2009, Tom Keiser <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Matt W. Benjamin<matt@linuxbox.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> A priority for openafs is to merge the rxosd changeset.  One obstacle to merging is the use of two 'unused' members in existing structures without prior coordination.  We've been asked to move discussion of the topic into this forum, which we hereby do.
>>>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Perhaps I'm missing some context since I couldn't make it to the
>> workshop this year, but I sense that we're really getting ahead of
>> ourselves -- rxosd (at least in the 1.4.8 tarball I received at the
>> Google hackathon) is neither cache coherent, nor consistent.  Until
>> we, as a community, have a chance to re-architect rxosd to follow afs3
>> semantics, and to properly support transactional semantics with regard
>> to vnodes and the volume package, I think it's premature to talk about
>> how afs3 should be modified to deal with these namespace collisions.
>>
> Assuming the stated desire to standardize OSD piecemeal, assuming the
> assignment of SyncCounter to return information about which protocol
> can be used to access a given file affects afs3 consistency in any
> manner especially without comment as to what the issue might be
> appears specious.

I disbelieve so. Matt's original post did include the complete (I 
assume, have not yet verified) list of so far unused/spare fields. A 
couple of months ago, Hartmut filed a request for a range of related 
RPCs that have already been granted.

Or have I misunderstood the apparent problem?

Cheers
  - Felix