On Tue, 30 Jul 2024, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:18:19PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > These two patches replace my previous patch:
> > [PATCH 07/14] Change unshare_fs_struct() to never fail.
> >
> > I had explored ways to change kthread_create() to avoid the need for
> > GFP_NOFAIL and concluded that we can do everything we need in the sunrpc
> > layer. So the first patch here is a simple cleanup, and the second adds
> > simple infrastructure for an svc thread to confirm that it has started
> > up and to report if it was successful in that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > NeilBrown
> >
> >
> >
> > [PATCH 1/2] sunrpc: merge svc_rqst_alloc() into svc_prepare_thread()
> > [PATCH 2/2] sunrpc: allow svc threads to fail initialisation cleanly
>
> This series does not apply to nfsd-next. It looks like 1/2 expects
> to see the EXPORT_SYMBOL after svc_rqst_alloc() that you already
> removed in "SUNRPC: make various functions static, or not exported."
>
> Also, 1/2 is From: your brown.name account, but the SoB is your
> SuSE email. (Maybe that doesn't matter).
Probably don't matter. That happened because I wrote that patch on my
notebook instead of my desktop and they have different defaults. I'll
try to remember that for next time.
>
> Can you rebase and resend?
I can't see "SUNRPC: make various functions static, or not exported." in
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux
Am I looking in the wrong place? If not, can you push out nfsd-next?
(and if you could delete "for-next" from there, and possibly other old
cruft, that might help too)
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> In 2/2, what is the reason to make svc_thread_init_status() a static
> inline rather than an exported function? I don't think this is going
> to be a performance hot path, but maybe it becomes one in a future
> patch?
>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
