J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 04:29:21PM -0500, bfields wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 01:40:47PM +1100, Greg Banks wrote: >> >>> A smaller issue is that you keep a single list and use the value of the >>> CACHE_PENDING bit to tell the difference between states. I think this >>> could be made to work; however my technique of using two lists makes >>> most of the code even simpler at the small cost of having to do two list >>> searches in queue_loose(). >>> >> OK. When exactly do they get moved between lists? I'll take a look at >> the code. >> > > The one thing I'd be curious about here would be robustness in the face > of a userland daemon that was restarted: Fair enough. > would requests marked as read > but not responded to be stuck there indefinitely at the time the daemon > went down? I don't think so. Requests on the to_write list have the CACHE_PENDING bit set, and that will trigger a call to cache_remove_queued() in either of cache_fresh_unlocked() or cache_clean(). The latter will happen when the cache_head expires or when the .../flush file is written, e.g. the next exportfs change. One of those should happen if the daemons are started normally. -- Greg Banks, P.Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. the brightly coloured sporks of revolution. I don't speak for SGI. -- 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
