Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 12 May 2021 13:42:05 +0300
From:   Dan Aloni <dan@kernelim.com>
To:     Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
Cc:     Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
        linux-nfs <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/13] sunrpc: add a symlink from rpc-client directory
 to the xprt_switch
Message-ID: <20210512104205.hblxgfiagbod6pis@gmail.com>
References: <20210426171947.99233-1-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
 <20210426171947.99233-10-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
 <20210427044214.vlbmbfdh5dpq4vhl@gmail.com>
 <CAN-5tyHPHk891-NkHt=6o+OuxRB+0ZqQRKqJ=hFThE=oYM0V7Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAN-5tyHPHk891-NkHt=6o+OuxRB+0ZqQRKqJ=hFThE=oYM0V7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 08:12:53AM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:42 AM Dan Aloni <dan@kernelim.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:19:43PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > > From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com>
> > >
> > > An rpc client uses a transport switch and one ore more transports
> > > associated with that switch. Since transports are shared among
> > > rpc clients, create a symlink into the xprt_switch directory
> > > instead of duplicating entries under each rpc client.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com>
> > >
> > >..
> > > @@ -188,6 +204,11 @@ void rpc_sysfs_client_destroy(struct rpc_clnt *clnt)
> > >       struct rpc_sysfs_client *rpc_client = clnt->cl_sysfs;
> > >
> > >       if (rpc_client) {
> > > +             char name[23];
> > > +
> > > +             snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "switch-%d",
> > > +                      rpc_client->xprt_switch->xps_id);
> > > +             sysfs_remove_link(&rpc_client->kobject, name);
> >
> > Hi Olga,
> >
> > If a client can use a single switch, shouldn't the name of the symlink
> > be just "switch"? This is to be consistent with other symlinks in
> > `sysfs` such as the ones in block layer, for example in my
> > `/sys/block/sda`:
> >
> >     bdi -> ../../../../../../../../../../../virtual/bdi/8:0
> >     device -> ../../../5:0:0:0
> 
> I think the client is written so that in the future it might have more
> than one switch?

I wonder what would be the use for that, as a switch is already collection of
xprts. Which would determine the switch to use per a new task IO?

-- 
Dan Aloni