Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40766 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751665AbaLIVbG (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:31:06 -0500 Message-ID: <54876A0C.3090109@RedHat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:30:52 -0500 From: Steve Dickson MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?windows-1252?Q?David_H=E4rdeman?= CC: Timo Teras , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] rework access to /proc/net/rpc References: <399e974867e03c052fedfa8e8fd688ca@hardeman.nu> <20141209104236.2204671c@vostro> <24f5038cdd74837afb8a53887eb4b803@hardeman.nu> <54871E87.7000300@RedHat.com> <20141209202652.GA32738@hardeman.nu> In-Reply-To: <20141209202652.GA32738@hardeman.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/09/2014 03:26 PM, David H?rdeman wrote: > 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. > Patches welcome! 8-) steved.