On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 04:31:22PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 16:23 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 04:03:49PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 15:54 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 02:49:12PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > > > > When the client's callback server goes away, the server's callback client > > > > > tries to contact the server and times out. For nfsd, it is beneficial to > > > > > printout a message when the client is unable to contact the server. For > > > > > the callback server, the same message is printed yet it is really not > > > > > an error. Thus we need a way to silence the message for the callback > > > > > and yet print it for other cases. > > > > > > Bring, back, > > > Bring, back, > > > Oh, bring back my cl_chatty to me... > > > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=f518e35aec984036903c1003e867f833747a9d79 > > > > OK, OK, so, shall we apply a patch that basically just reverts Chuck's > > patch there, except that it inverts the meaning and uses the name > > cl_quiet instead of cl_chatty? (On the theory that since the verbose > > case is the common case, it's best to let this thing be initialized to 0 > > and only make the callback code mess with it?) Or are you nostalgic for > > cl_chatty? > > > > --b. > > Why have two names for the same thing? That will just cause confusion > should we ever want to backport this stuff to older kernels. > > In any case, Chuck has made these bit-flags private to the RPC layer, so > you can still add RPC_CLNT_CREATE_QUIET to the rpc_create_args->flags, > and have the default be cl_chatty = 1, when that create_arg flag isn't > set. OK, that sounds fine. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
