Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from relay.parallels.com ([195.214.232.42]:52294 "EHLO relay.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752575Ab3CFGTh (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 01:19:37 -0500 Message-ID: <5136DFBE.3090505@parallels.com> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:18:38 +0400 From: Stanislav Kinsbursky MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: , , , Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH] nfsd: check client tracker initialization result References: <20130228120959.6764.17787.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20130305212001.GD15816@fieldses.org> <5136CEEB.5090505@parallels.com> In-Reply-To: <5136CEEB.5090505@parallels.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 06.03.2013 09:06, Stanislav Kinsbursky пишет: > 06.03.2013 01:20, J. Bruce Fields пишет: >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:09:59PM +0300, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote: >>> Function nfsd4_client_tracking_init() can return error. >> >> Before, I think that we the nfsd4_client_* functions just became no-ops >> in this case. With the result that no client records get written, and >> so clients are unable to reclaim on the next boot. >> >> Which is annoying, but possibly not as annoying as your server >> completely refusing to start. >> >> It's arguably more helpful in the long run to fail immediately when we >> recognize reboot recovery isn't going to work. But in practice this may >> mean people that never knew they had a problem suddenly have servers >> that don't start at all. >> >> So I'm inclined to be more forgiving and leave this as it is. But maybe >> something like a warning printk would be appropriate. >> > > Ok then. > I'll add the warning anf convert the function to be "void" rather then "int". > Thanks! > We already have a warning. So, probably all we need is just to change a prototype to make it less confusing. Is it ok? -- Best regards, Stanislav Kinsbursky