Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:26:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:26:53 -0500 Received: from mons.uio.no ([129.240.130.14]:46267 "EHLO mons.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:26:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15827.64148.272459.600067@helicity.uio.no> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:33:40 +0100 To: root@chaos.analogic.com Cc: Trond Myklebust , Chuck Lever , Dan Kegel , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] new timeout behavior for RPC requests on TCP sockets In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no From: Trond Myklebust Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1009 Lines: 23 >>>>> " " == Richard B Johnson writes: > Because all of the RPC stuff was, initially, user-mode > code. For performance reasons or otherwise, it was moved into > the kernel. Okay, so far? Now, when something goes wrong with > that code, should that code be fixed, or should the unrelated > TCP/IP code be modified to accommodate? I think the time-outs > should be put at the correct places and not added to generic > network code. No. The kernel RPC code has never been user mode code, nor has it ever been exported to userland. It exists purely for the benefit of NFS and friends. It is located in a subdirectory of the network code, but it is certainly not 'generic network code'. Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/