On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 13:42 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > If by "broken" you mean, "introduces a new kernel bug", I don't see it. > > I mean it introduces utterly unnecessary complications that may return > to bite us in the arse at a future time. OK, that's the answer I was looking for, thanks. > Remember how we once said that it would never make sense for child > clones to call the portmapper, and so we added the BUG_ON() in > rpcb_getport_async; well guess what, we currently have a bug to fix... No, I don't remember that. But yes, I can see how in general this sort of thing could make the code harder to maintain. > One pretty obvious fix is to simply move the release method so that it > doesn't occur when you release a child. The disadvantage is that a child > may then not change its program to one that requires a release method > (do we need that?). I doubt we need that, but... > Another fix would be to add a refcount to the rpc_program structure... ... a refcount seems more straightforward. Benny, what do you think? --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
