On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:39:59 +0400 Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 13.09.2011 16:51, Jeff Layton пишет: > > My assumption in reading this set (maybe wrong) was that this was a > > preliminary set for now that just plops in function calls in the places > > that do this sort of thing now. I figured that eventually he'd convert > > rpcb_create_local, et. al. to do the same thing but within the correct > > namespace for the calling task. > > > > You have a right assumption. This is exactly what I'm going to do next. > > > > > I think the simplest solution would be to basically call these > > functions closer to where the rpcbind calls happen today, and just > > don't do them when the svc_program has vs_hidden set or if the xprt is > > being created with SVC_SOCK_ANONYMOUS set. > > > > This solution is not the simplest one since we call svc_register() for every svc > socket if it's not anonymous. But svc_unregister() is called only once for all > inet families and protocols. > Ahh ok, good point. > Also I've noticed, that we call svc_unregister in __svc_create(). I.e. we call > it for nfs callbacks as well (in spite of that we don't need this). Thus, for > now, nfs callbacks service creation depends on rpcbind clients presence. > Yeah, that's just to remove the any existing registration before we set up the new one. In the case of a "hidden" service that can probably be skipped if it makes things easier. > So, for my pow, we need something like startup() callback, passed to > svc_create(_pooled)() to clean up this mess. > This callback will be defined only for lockd and nfsd and will create rpcbind > clients and remove any stale portmap registrations. > That sounds like a reasonable scheme. I'll wait to see the patches. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
