From: Chuck Lever Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 11/35] svc: Add xpo_accept transport function Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:07:56 -0400 Message-ID: <325D6316-382E-45F5-BBB8-4BE40A637C53@oracle.com> References: <20071001191426.3250.15371.stgit@dell3.ogc.int> <20071001192753.3250.94322.stgit@dell3.ogc.int> <1191343305.1565.24.camel@trinity.ogc.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: neilb@suse.de, bfields@fieldses.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, gnb@sgi.com To: tom@opengridcomputing.com Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IclEV-0000Nx-BQ for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:08:33 -0700 Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1IclEY-0001vL-65 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:08:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1191343305.1565.24.camel@trinity.ogc.int> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Tom Tucker wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:33 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >> On Oct 1, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Tom Tucker wrote: > > [...snip...] > >>> + if (newxpt) >>> + svc_check_conn_limits(svsk->sk_server); >>> + svc_sock_received(svsk); >>> } else { >>> dprintk("svc: server %p, pool %u, socket %p, inuse=%d\n", >>> rqstp, pool->sp_id, svsk, atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse)); >> >> Instead of adding a test_bit() and conditional branch here, why not >> always call xpo_accept? For UDP, the method simply returns. >> > > That's what I thought at first too, but UDP needs to call receive > here. > Doing nothing stalls the service and lockd never gets set up. The purpose of a transport switch is to force all the transport specific processing down into the transport implementation so you don't need these SK_ switches to decide whether or not to call a function based on which transport is in use. Could you instead create, say, an ->xpo_accept_and_receive hook that did the right thing for all three transports? -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs