On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 09:58:36AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:21:56 -0400 > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:43:57PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:21:30 -0400 > > > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Once an xprt has been deleted, there's no reason to allow it to be > > > > enqueued--at worst, that might cause the xprt to be re-added to some > > > > global list, resulting in later corruption. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Yep, this makes svc_close_xprt() behave the same way as svc_recv() which > > > calls svc_delete_xprt but does not clear XPT_BUSY. The other branches in > > > svc_recv call svc_xprt_received, but the XPT_CLOSE branch doesn't > > > > > > Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> > > > > Also, of course: > > > > > > svc_xprt_get(xprt); > > > > svc_delete_xprt(xprt); > > > > - clear_bit(XPT_BUSY, &xprt->xpt_flags); > > > > svc_xprt_put(xprt); > > > > The get/put is pointless: the only reason I can see for doing that of > > course was to be able to safely clear the bit afterwards. > > > > Agreed. > > I like patches that get rid of code!! Unfortunately, I'm stuck on just one more point: is svc_close_all() really safe? It assumes it doesn't need any locking to speak of any more because the server threads are gone--but the xprt's themselves could still be producing events, right? (So data could be arriving that results in calls to svc_xprt_enqueue, for example?) If that's right, I'm not sure what to do there.... --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
