Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:54322 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756402Ab3DZPnw (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:43:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:43:48 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: "Myklebust, Trond" Cc: Chuck Lever , "J. Bruce Fields" , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] SUNRPC: allow disabling idle timeout Message-ID: <20130426154348.GD17268@fieldses.org> References: <1366054508-27604-1-git-send-email-bfields@redhat.com> <1366054508-27604-3-git-send-email-bfields@redhat.com> <20130418170020.GA31075@fieldses.org> <1366304823.58246.22.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> <20130418171424.GA30837@pad.fieldses.org> <20130424150037.GA20275@fieldses.org> <1366815805.3812.1.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1366815805.3812.1.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:03:23PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 11:00 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:25:49AM -0700, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 18, 2013, at 10:14 AM, "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 05:07:03PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 13:00 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:35:04PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > >>>> From: "J. Bruce Fields" > > > >>>> > > > >>>> In the gss-proxy case we don't want to have to reconnect at random--we > > > >>>> want to connect only on gss-proxy startup when we can steal gss-proxy's > > > >>>> context to do the connect in the right namespace. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So, provide a flag that allows the rpc_create caller to turn off the > > > >>>> idle timeout. > > > >>> > > > >>> Chuck, the basic ideas was your suggestion, does the executation look OK > > > >>> here? I had to copy the rpc_create flags down to the xprt_create, I > > > >>> don't know if that's reasonable. > > > >> > > > >> This patch will conflict with commit > > > >> b7993cebb841b0da7a33e9d5ce301a9fd3209165 (SUNRPC: Allow rpc_create() to > > > >> request that TCP slots be unlimited) that was posted on this list > > > >> earlier this week. > > > > > > > > Oh, sorry, I missed that. > > > > > > > > Presumably then I should just work on top of that and do the same > > > > thing--define a pair of flags > > > > {RP_CLNT_CREATE|XPRT_CREATE}_NO_IDLE_TIMEOUT and translate between the > > > > two in rpc_create. > > > > > > Agree. > > > > The result (untested) looks like this. > > > > If this is OK--Trond, do you mind if I merge this commit (or > > nfs-for-next) into my tree, and then the rest of the gss-proxy patches > > on top? > > > > Or is the nfs-for-next branch still potentially subject to rewriting? > > nfs-for-next is stable, so it should be safe to pull into your nfsd > tree. OK, done locally, pushing out that and the gss-proxy work soon pending some testing. This just means I'll want to wait till after your branch is pulled for the next merge window before sending my pull-request, to avoid creating confusion about who did what. Therefore, please delay your request as long as you like, as that will give me an excuse for my own procrastination. Thanks! --b.