OK. I'll squash this in and re-submit the series on Wednesday. On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Since I'm just getting around to this now... just > replace this patch please.... > > tia, > > steved > > Kevin Coffman wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:24 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 05:56:26PM -0400, Kevin Coffman wrote: >>>> From: Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Add support for handling upcalls on the new "nfsd4_cb" directory pipes. >>>> Only new kernels (2.6.29) have support for this new pipe directory. >>>> (The need for this new pipe directory will go away with NFSv4.1 where >>>> the callback can be done on the same connection as the fore-channel.) >>> My only complaint is that the code would be robust (and more >>> future-proof) if instead of specifically looking for "nfs" and >>> "nfsd4_cb", we just look at all top-level rpc_pipefs directories and >>> handed directories under any of them in the same way. >>> >>> --b. >> >> In our offline discussion, Bruce convinced me that we should just >> treat all the directories under the rpc_pipefs directory as equal, and >> process any clnt directories that show up within them. (This >> currently includes, "lockd mount nfs nfsd4_cb portmap statd".) >> Any new directories appearing in the future will automatically get the >> same treatment. >> >> Steve, I don't know what you might have already done with these >> patches. Would you prefer a replacement for this patch, or patch on >> top of this? >> >> K.C. > > -- 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
