From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [pnfs] [PATCH] nfsd: use nfs client rpc callback program Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:49:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20080924184934.GK5772@fieldses.org> References: <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> <1222277168.7390.19.camel@localhost> <20080924174230.GJ5772@fieldses.org> <1222281745.7390.34.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Benny Halevy , Olga Kornievskaia , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, pnfs mailing list , Trond Myklebust To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:46850 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751878AbYIXStl (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:49:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1222281745.7390.34.camel@localhost> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 13:42 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > If by "broken" you mean, "introduces a new kernel bug", I don't see it. > > I mean it introduces utterly unnecessary complications that may return > to bite us in the arse at a future time. OK, that's the answer I was looking for, thanks. > Remember how we once said that it would never make sense for child > clones to call the portmapper, and so we added the BUG_ON() in > rpcb_getport_async; well guess what, we currently have a bug to fix... No, I don't remember that. But yes, I can see how in general this sort of thing could make the code harder to maintain. > One pretty obvious fix is to simply move the release method so that it > doesn't occur when you release a child. The disadvantage is that a child > may then not change its program to one that requires a release method > (do we need that?). I doubt we need that, but... > Another fix would be to add a refcount to the rpc_program structure... ... a refcount seems more straightforward. Benny, what do you think? --b.