On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:03:08AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:10:24PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:21:33 -0400
> > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > The only caller (svc_send) has already checked XPT_DEAD.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 3 ---
> > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> > > index 1454739..07919e1 100644
> > > --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> > > @@ -1135,9 +1135,6 @@ static int svc_tcp_sendto(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
> > > reclen = htonl(0x80000000|((xbufp->len ) - 4));
> > > memcpy(xbufp->head[0].iov_base, &reclen, 4);
> > >
> > > - if (test_bit(XPT_DEAD, &rqstp->rq_xprt->xpt_flags))
> > > - return -ENOTCONN;
> > > -
> > > sent = svc_sendto(rqstp, &rqstp->rq_res);
> > > if (sent != xbufp->len) {
> > > printk(KERN_NOTICE
> >
> >
> > So after removing all these references to XPT_DEAD, do we need XPT_DEAD at
> > all???
> >
> > I think it is only used in two other places.
> >
> > 1/ In svc_revisit we don't queue the deferred request to an XPT_DEAD
> > transport.
> > We could avoid that but changing the 'owner' of a deferred request from the
> > service to the xprt, and call cache_clean_deferred in svc_delete_xprt
>
> That use does seem a bit of a hack to me, so I'd be happy to get rid of
> it.
Eh, but then don't we end up doing the same check when deferring, to
prevent deferring a request on a dead xprt?
Maybe we should leave well enough alone here.
--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
