On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 06:45:45PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Create a separate server-level interface for unregistering RPC services.
>
> The mechanics of and the API for registering and unregistering RPC
> services will diverge further as support for IPv6 is added.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> net/sunrpc/svc.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc.c b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> index d0e7865..a41b163 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
>
> #define RPCDBG_FACILITY RPCDBG_SVCDSP
>
> +static void svc_unregister(const struct svc_serv *serv);
> +
> #define svc_serv_is_pooled(serv) ((serv)->sv_function)
>
> /*
> @@ -426,9 +428,8 @@ __svc_create(struct svc_program *prog, unsigned int bufsize, int npools,
> spin_lock_init(&pool->sp_lock);
> }
>
> -
> /* Remove any stale portmap registrations */
> - svc_register(serv, 0, 0);
> + svc_unregister(serv);
>
> return serv;
> }
> @@ -496,8 +497,7 @@ svc_destroy(struct svc_serv *serv)
> if (svc_serv_is_pooled(serv))
> svc_pool_map_put();
>
> - /* Unregister service with the portmapper */
> - svc_register(serv, 0, 0);
> + svc_unregister(serv);
> kfree(serv->sv_pools);
> kfree(serv);
> }
> @@ -758,12 +758,10 @@ int
> svc_register(struct svc_serv *serv, int proto, unsigned short port)
> {
> struct svc_program *progp;
> - unsigned long flags;
> unsigned int i;
> int error = 0, dummy;
>
> - if (!port)
> - clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> + BUG_ON(proto == 0 && port == 0);
>
> for (progp = serv->sv_program; progp; progp = progp->pg_next) {
> for (i = 0; i < progp->pg_nvers; i++) {
> @@ -791,13 +789,62 @@ svc_register(struct svc_serv *serv, int proto, unsigned short port)
> }
> }
>
> - if (!port) {
> - spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> - recalc_sigpending();
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> + return error;
> +}
The "port" in the (port && !dummy) check in this loop should also go.
> +
> +/*
> + * The local rpcbind daemon listens on either only IPv6 or only
> + * IPv4. The kernel can't tell how it's configured.
> + *
> + * However, AF_INET addresses are mapped to AF_INET6 in IPv6-only
> + * configurations, so even an unregistration request on AF_INET
> + * will get to a local rpcbind daemon listening only on AF_INET6.
> + *
> + * So we always unregister via AF_INET (the loopback address is
> + * fairly unambiguous anyway).
> + *
> + * At this point we don't need rpcbind version 4 for unregistration:
> + * A v2 UNSET request will clear all transports (netids), addresses,
> + * and address families for [program, version].
> + *
> + * This should allow automatic support for both an all-IPv4 and
> + * an all-IPv6 configuration.
> + */
> +static void __svc_unregister(struct svc_program *program, u32 version)
> +{
> + int error, boolean;
> +
> + error = rpcb_register(program->pg_prog, version, 0, 0, &boolean);
> + dprintk("svc: svc_unregister(%sv%u), error %d, %s\n",
> + program->pg_name, version, error,
> + (boolean ? "succeeded" : "failed"));
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * All transport protocols and ports for this service are removed from
> + * the local rpcbind database. The result of unregistration is reported
> + * via dprintk for those who want verification of the result, but is
> + * otherwise not important.
> + */
> +static void svc_unregister(const struct svc_serv *serv)
> +{
> + struct svc_program *program;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u32 version;
It may just be brain-damage from too many years of mathematics, but
let's leave this as "i" as before: its scope is only a few lines, its
meaning is obvious from use, and this is what CodingStyle asks for
anyway.
> +
> + clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> +
> + for (program = serv->sv_program; program; program = program->pg_next) {
> + for (version = 0; version < program->pg_nvers; version++) {
> + if (program->pg_vers[version] == NULL)
> + continue;
> + __svc_unregister(program, version);
Isn't there a change in behavior from the omitted vs_hidden check?
I assume it's harmless to unregister something that was never
registered (if that's indeed what this does), but it seems better to
skip it.
Needs a comment in the changelog in any case.
> + }
> }
>
> - return error;
> + spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> + recalc_sigpending();
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> }
>
> /*
>
> --
> 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
--
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
