On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 14:44 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > On 09/27/2010 11:40 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On Sep 27, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c | 20 ++++++++++++-------- > >> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c > >> index b6309db..98d4b7b 100644 > >> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c > >> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c > >> @@ -759,6 +759,8 @@ static void xs_tcp_close(struct rpc_xprt *xprt) > >> xs_tcp_shutdown(xprt); > >> } > >> > >> +static void xs_free_xprt(struct rpc_xprt *xprt); > > > > Style nit: we usually like forward declarations at the top of source files. > > OK. > > > Do you need to fix up xprtrdma too? (eg. xprt_rdma_destroy) It looks like it has > > similar logic around freeing xprts. > > Indeed. Bruce, which way would you prefer - should I re-send the whole set or > can apply this change incrementally? > > > Even though it doesn't use sockets, do we need to be concerned about net namespaces > > for RDMA transports? > > I believe we should, since at least its initialization goes to the rdma_resolve_addr > which in turn resolves the address using IP-level routing. But I wanted to finish with > the tcp/udp transports first. If you are redoing the patch, then could you please just get rid of the above forward declaration for xs_free_xprt, and instead just move the function itself further up the file? Cheers Trond -- 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
