Benny Halevy wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfsd/state.h | 8 ++++++++
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/state.h b/fs/nfsd/state.h
> index fefeae2..7e67eca 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/state.h
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/state.h
> @@ -186,6 +186,13 @@ struct nfsd4_sessionid {
>
> #define HEXDIR_LEN 33 /* hex version of 16 byte md5 of cl_name plus '\0' */
>
> +/* nfs4_client states */
> +enum nfs4_client_state {
> + CL_STATE_NORMAL,
> + CL_STATE_RENEW,
> + CL_STATE_EXPIRED,
> +};
> +
> /*
> * struct nfs4_client - one per client. Clientids live here.
> * o Each nfs4_client is hashed by clientid.
> @@ -214,6 +221,7 @@ struct nfs4_client {
> nfs4_verifier cl_confirm; /* generated by server */
> struct nfs4_cb_conn cl_cb_conn; /* callback info */
> atomic_t cl_count; /* ref count */
> + atomic_t cl_state; /* renew / expiry state */
The use of an atomic here seems complex and makes the
implementation seem fragile to me. Is the atomic_cmpxchg()
really going to save much time over just using a spinlock
and normal loads and stores to retrieve and get the value
of cl_state? A spinlock would make things much more
obvious how they were supposed to work, to me, at least.
Thanx...
ps
> u32 cl_firststate; /* recovery dir creation */
>
> /* for nfs41 */
--
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
