On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Peter Staubach wrote:
Chuck Lever wrote:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Peter Staubach wrote:
Olaf Kirch wrote:
On Tuesday 03 November 2009 10:13:27 Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
I don't understand the reasoning behind .vs_hidden for NFS_ACL,
hopefully
Olaf can clarify. NFS_ACL is the only user of .vs_hidden as far
as I
can
see though, so if this is changeg, shouldn't the entire commit
bc5fea4
which introduced the flag be reverted?
I can't remember the details of that one. I do remember that this
is
based on someone's request who told me that we shouldn't register
nfsacl
with portmap. I didn't check myself whether Solaris did or did
not do
it at that time.
I have no issue with reverting that change, and removing the whole
.vs_hidden kludge too.
It seems that vs_hidden is used in 1 place outside of the NFS_ACL
server code. It is used in the NFSv4 callback code.
I will look to see how difficult that might be to fix this spot
as well and then get rid of vs_hidden.
See archive of this mailing list from earlier in October. This
change
was added because it's hard to get rid of the svc_unregister() call
done
by svc_create().
I have another solution for that problem that I'm preparing for
2.6.33.
Cool.
In the meantime, can we get this one in, Bruce?
As far as I know, there is no "meantime" in this case. 2.6.33 is the
next merge window.
I don't have a problem with getting rid of .vs_hidden anyway... all
I'm saying is maybe you don't have to work too hard at it. :-)
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
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
