From: Tao Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] SQUASHME pnfs-submit: replace layoutcommit_ctx with rpc_cred Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 00:02:51 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1274371457-10003-1-git-send-email-andros@netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: bhalevy@panasas.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "William A. (Andy) Adamson" Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:40227 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757681Ab0EXQCw (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2010 12:02:52 -0400 Received: by vws9 with SMTP id 9so2482519vws.19 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:02:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:43 PM, William A. (Andy) Adamson wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Tao Guo wrote: >> I see... But what if sync == 1? At that time, data must have already >> been freed, so you should not use data->cred anymore. > > Agreed. > > Since LAYOUTCOMMIT is not called after close, we can get rid of taking > the reference all together since a reference is taken on OPEN and > dropped on CLOSE. > > -->Andy I agree. However that will change several functions' interface I guess. I still have a question: why some procedures need to set rpc_cred whereas some needn't ? what is the connection between ctx's rpc_cred and nfs4_state_owner's so_cred? Any guidance will be appreciated... >> >> -- >> tao. >> > -- tao.