From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [pnfs] [PATCH] nfsd: use nfs client rpc callback program Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:26:08 -0400 Message-ID: <1222277168.7390.19.camel@localhost> References: <48D15DF0.4000406@panasas.com> <20080917231018.GA5723@fieldses.org> <48D193EE.2020805@panasas.com> <48D19C74.8000303@panasas.com> <48D2AAF7.6060808@panasas.com> <20080924163528.GB5772@fieldses.org> <1222275582.7390.8.camel@localhost> <20080924172134.GI5772@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Benny Halevy , Olga Kornievskaia , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, pnfs mailing list , Trond Myklebust To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from mail-out2.uio.no ([129.240.10.58]:60125 "EHLO mail-out2.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752202AbYIXR0Q (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:26:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080924172134.GI5772@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 13:21 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Well the current implementation is certainly broken. Look at what > > happens if I clone the rpc_clnt... > > Hence the comment that "we assume this rpc_client is the last user of > the program." I believe that assumption is correct in the case of nfsd > callbacks, so Benny's patch is at least not broken--just a little > ad-hoc. > > So the question is whether the above solution, which addresses only this > particular case, is sufficient, or whether we'd like something more > general, like adding a reference count to the program along with a > free_program callback called only on the final put. It's broken... Trond