Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from vader.hardeman.nu ([95.142.160.32]:51696 "EHLO hardeman.nu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750823AbaLIU1B (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:27:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 21:26:52 +0100 From: David =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4rdeman?= To: Steve Dickson Cc: Timo Teras , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] rework access to /proc/net/rpc Message-ID: <20141209202652.GA32738@hardeman.nu> References: <399e974867e03c052fedfa8e8fd688ca@hardeman.nu> <20141209104236.2204671c@vostro> <24f5038cdd74837afb8a53887eb4b803@hardeman.nu> <54871E87.7000300@RedHat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <54871E87.7000300@RedHat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 11:08:39AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >On 12/09/2014 09:01 AM, David H?rdeman wrote: >> On 2014-12-09 09:42, Timo Teras wrote: >>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:16:59 +0100 >>> David H?rdeman wrote: >>>> At least the readline() function could be implemented using >>>> read/write (instead of fread/fwrite) and a dynamic buffer...no? >>> >>> It's extra complexity. I'd rather not add it unless it's required. My >>> understanding about the communication mechanism with kernel is that >>> it's not required. Why have code that would never be used? >> >> I agree that it depends on your view. I tend to be very sceptical of arbitrary >> limitations unless they have a very good reason (like measurable and relevant >> performance impact), I doubt that's the case here. >Your skeptical-ability of arbitrary limitations has become very clear in >the last few hours... ;-) I guess I'm indifferent about it... From reading >your gssd patch set, it is a bit more artful not to use fixed size buffers >but again, I'm indifferent... That said... if patches appear removing these >fixed buffers they definitely would be considered... > >> >> It's up to the maintainer though, I just wanted to point it out :) >My understanding these patches were needed to make nfs-utils compatible with the musl c-library. >That is the case, correct? The fread/fwrite removal seems reasonable, yes. The removal of the readline() function though (which could be implemented using normal read/malloc/realloc) seems less so.....IMHO. -- David H?rdeman