On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:57:04PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:42 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Section 18.36.3 of rfc 5661 says that "For the fore channel, the server > > MAY change the requested value." > > > > Also, there's no reason why the client would have to care if the server > > is willing to accept *more* operations per compound than the client > > requested. > > > > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 1 - > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > On the other hand, if the server *decreases* max_ops on the forechannel, > > the client may need to do something. (Probably just fail for now.) Why > > aren't we checking for that case? > > > > --b. > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > > index 071fced..a5a3690 100644 > > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > > @@ -4880,7 +4880,6 @@ static int nfs4_verify_channel_attrs(struct nfs41_create_session_args *args, > > > > ret |= _verify_fore_channel_attr(headerpadsz); > > ret |= _verify_fore_channel_attr(max_resp_sz); > > - ret |= _verify_fore_channel_attr(max_ops); > > > > ret |= _verify_back_channel_attr(headerpadsz); > > ret |= _verify_back_channel_attr(max_rqst_sz); > > Yes. That all looks wrong. > > Can we please just get rid of that senseless macro, and open code those > checks instead of the above patch? The current code is just pure > obfuscation... Sounds good to me. I'm hoping Andy can be roped into it.... --b. -- 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
