On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:04:21AM -0800, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 11/09/2011 11:55 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Hey now, nfs4pnfsd.c has enough problems of its own without being > > accused of surliness. > > > > Allow me to disagree! the nfs4pnfsd.c is a very nice pretty clean, > well formatted and well implemented pNFS-Server implementation. > Believe me I have seen a few other pNFS and Parallel servers > implementation and this is surgery room clean compare to the other. > (If you look at the point before pnfs-exp and spNFS patches) OK, I hope so! And we *are* getting closer to finishing off the last of the 4.1 stuff (though with just me it's not going to happen for 3.3.), so I hope to be looking at that soon. > The only real mess in there is the mess already inherited from nfsd, > like the great and grate messy locking. You mean the overuse of the state lock, or something else? --b. > Though it's better then the rest of the NFSD code. -- 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
