On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:55:40 -0400 > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 04:50:03PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > As a first exercise, maybe we should figure out how the interface would > > look if we had the opportunity to start over from scratch. > > > > I wholeheartedly agree. This set is essentially a bandaid and I think > it helps the basic problems but there are plenty of others. > > I'm all for redesigning the innards for better fault tolerance, but I > think we ought to shoot for not changing the userspace interface unless > there's just no other way, or it provides a substantial "win". Yeah, agreed--that's why I said "as a first exercise". Sometimes once you figure out what you want, it also becomes easier to figure out how to get there in a backwards-compatible way. > I think we could fix this in a much better way by not creating the > nfsd_serv until threads need to be started. > > Basically just have write_ports add socket info to a global list rather > than to the nfsd_serv itself. When nfsd_serv is created, we'd walk that > list and add those sockets to the nfsd_serv. > > Any time that the portlist file is written to, we'd check to see if > nfsd is up. If it is then sync up the nfsd sockets with the contents of > the list. If the problem with creating nfsd_server earlier is just that it prevents things like versions or leasetime from being changed, perhaps we should just relax that rule. --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
