On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:54:01PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2011, at 12:13 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > The current code was failing iff the last registration returns an error. > > We list the nfs program before the acl program in this list, so nfsd > > registration was failing iff the acl program failed, which makes no > > sense whatsoever. > > > > I think "all or none" would be cleanest. > > > > If people start complaining that they don't want to run rpcbind/portmap > > then we could give them some way of requesting that instead of just > > depending on allowing the registration to fail. > > I thought vs_hidden was set for NFSACL... but maybe I was wrong about that. Oh, I forgot about that. But, checking.... Actually, it looks like it's not set for NFSACL--from a quick grep, it appears that only the callback server sets it. > > For cleanup, we can just unregister everything, right? (No harm in > > possibly unregistering something who's registration just failed?) > > Yes. As a simple hard-headed approach, probably you should walk the passed-in sv_program list again and unregister each item in the list. The downside to this is if the upcall is taking a long time (for instance, if networking is not available). It would double the amount of time for svc_register() to return a failure. > > However, be prepared: I bet such a change could expose bugs in the NFSD start up stack. There are so many to expose. > :-( Maybe it deserves some soak-time in linux-next. Sure. --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
