Message-ID: <4EBBF605.9050403@panasas.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:04:21 -0800
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
CC: Benny Halevy <benny@tonian.com>, NFS list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH] SQUASHME: pnfsd: nfs4pnfsd.c should dprint under
 NFSDDBG_PNFS
References: <4EB9F8D6.1080302@panasas.com> <20111109195510.GA2227@fieldses.org>
In-Reply-To: <20111109195510.GA2227@fieldses.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 11/09/2011 11:55 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 07:51:50PM -0800, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>
>> I've been squinting  at pnfsd dprints for ages and aching under the wait. So I headed
>> up to the nfsd/debug.h to add a PNFS channel, and what do you know? there is one!
>> It's used by nfs4pnfsds.c. Surly  nfs4pnfsd.c is more _PNFS than _PROC.
> 
> Hey now, nfs4pnfsd.c has enough problems of its own without being
> accused of surliness.
> 

Allow me to disagree! the nfs4pnfsd.c is a very nice pretty clean, well formatted and
well implemented pNFS-Server implementation. Believe me I have seen a few other pNFS
and Parallel servers implementation and this is surgery room clean compare to the
other. (If you look at the point before pnfs-exp and spNFS patches)

The only real mess in there is the mess already inherited from nfsd, like the great and grate
messy locking. Though it's better then the rest of the NFSD code.

So you see, I do think it could be accused of "surliness"

> --b.
> 
>>

--Be