On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:04:07PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > Now that a slight delay in getting a reply to an upcall doesn't > require deferring of requests, request deferral for all NFSv4 > requests - the concept doesn't really fit with the v4 model. Applied with a minor comment fix. --b. > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> > --- > fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c > index 59ec449..fca3621 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c > @@ -1031,8 +1031,8 @@ nfsd4_proc_compound(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, > resp->cstate.session = NULL; > fh_init(&resp->cstate.current_fh, NFS4_FHSIZE); > fh_init(&resp->cstate.save_fh, NFS4_FHSIZE); > - /* Use the deferral mechanism only for NFSv4.0 compounds */ > - rqstp->rq_usedeferral = (args->minorversion == 0); > + /* Don't use the deferral mechanism NFSv4. */ > + rqstp->rq_usedeferral = 0; > > /* > * According to RFC3010, this takes precedence over all other errors. > > -- 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
