From: Chuck Lever Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] register NFS_ACL with rpcbind Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:45:16 -0500 Message-ID: <8B8518B9-B6D2-4C56-94FA-E3A8420C0FEA@oracle.com> References: <4AEF2D19.5090409@redhat.com> <4AEF562B.9070606@redhat.com> <200911031013.27247.agruen@suse.de> <200911031017.41564.okir@suse.de> <4AF04C2A.4020203@redhat.com> <2009D157-24A6-442E-9BBB-D93690A17BFE@oracle.com> <4AF1CB83.2090204@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Cc: Olaf Kirch , Andreas Gruenbacher , NFS list , "J. Bruce Fields" To: Peter Staubach Return-path: Received: from acsinet11.oracle.com ([141.146.126.233]:29389 "EHLO acsinet11.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757594AbZKDTqJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:46:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4AF1CB83.2090204@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Peter Staubach wrote: > Chuck Lever wrote: >> On Nov 3, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Peter Staubach wrote: >>> Olaf Kirch wrote: >>>> On Tuesday 03 November 2009 10:13:27 Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >>>>> I don't understand the reasoning behind .vs_hidden for NFS_ACL, >>>>> hopefully >>>>> Olaf can clarify. NFS_ACL is the only user of .vs_hidden as far >>>>> as I >>>>> can >>>>> see though, so if this is changeg, shouldn't the entire commit >>>>> bc5fea4 >>>>> which introduced the flag be reverted? >>>> >>>> I can't remember the details of that one. I do remember that this >>>> is >>>> based on someone's request who told me that we shouldn't register >>>> nfsacl >>>> with portmap. I didn't check myself whether Solaris did or did >>>> not do >>>> it at that time. >>>> >>>> I have no issue with reverting that change, and removing the whole >>>> .vs_hidden kludge too. >>>> >>> >>> It seems that vs_hidden is used in 1 place outside of the NFS_ACL >>> server code. It is used in the NFSv4 callback code. >>> >>> I will look to see how difficult that might be to fix this spot >>> as well and then get rid of vs_hidden. >> >> See archive of this mailing list from earlier in October. This >> change >> was added because it's hard to get rid of the svc_unregister() call >> done >> by svc_create(). >> >> I have another solution for that problem that I'm preparing for >> 2.6.33. >> > > Cool. > > In the meantime, can we get this one in, Bruce? As far as I know, there is no "meantime" in this case. 2.6.33 is the next merge window. I don't have a problem with getting rid of .vs_hidden anyway... all I'm saying is maybe you don't have to work too hard at it. :-) -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com