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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210426171947.99233-1-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
 <20210426171947.99233-10-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> <20210427044214.vlbmbfdh5dpq4vhl@gmail.com>
 <CAN-5tyGe32FEeK0+bnMU16zu5Y6RkVqEey4G3VocEtx8vSQwiw@mail.gmail.com> <E841CE1C-041E-4E9A-B14F-925CC0A08581@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <E841CE1C-041E-4E9A-B14F-925CC0A08581@redhat.com>
From:   Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 May 2021 10:16:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN-5tyF_x+6vtyEtfkUNTj1-MWqTg0RoRJvofh5nbRq-miot8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/13] sunrpc: add a symlink from rpc-client directory
 to the xprt_switch
To:     Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>
Cc:     Dan Aloni <dan@kernelim.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
        linux-nfs <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 6:17 AM Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 13 May 2021, at 17:18, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:42 AM Dan Aloni <dan@kernelim.com> wrote:
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > Jumping back to this comment because now that I went back to try to
> > modify the code I'm having doubts.
> >
> > We still need numbering of xprt switches because they are different
> > for different mounts. So xprt_switches directory would still have
> > switch-0 for say a mount to server A and then switch-0 for a mount to
> > server B.  While yes I see that for a given rpc client that's making a
> > link into a xprt_switches directory will only have 1 link. And "yes"
> > the name of the link could be "switch". But isn't it more informative
> > to keep this to be the same name as the name of the directory under
> > the xprt_switches?
>
> The information isn't lost, as the symlink points to the specific switch.
> Not using a number in the symlink name informs that there will only be one
> switch for each client and makes it more deterministic for users and
> software to navigate.

What will be lost is that when you look at the xprt_switches directory
and see switch-1... switch-10 subdirectory, there is no way to tell
which rpc client uses which switch. Because each client-1 directory
will only have an entry saying "switch".

Anyway, I submitted the new version but I think it's not as good as
the original.

>
> Ben
>