Isn't the clp->cl_rpcclient->cl_server always the same as clp->cl_hostname? Can we just get rid of the cl_hostname and use the cl_server? -->Andy On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Adamson, Dros <Weston.Adamson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Adamson, Dros wrote: > >> >> On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 16:10 -0500, andros@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> From: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Used by /proc/fs/nfsfs/servers >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> fs/nfs/client.c | 3 ++- >>>> fs/nfs/internal.h | 3 ++- >>>> fs/nfs/nfs4filelayoutdev.c | 11 ++++++++++- >>>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/client.c b/fs/nfs/client.c >>>> index d0f850f..c625284 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/nfs/client.c >>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/client.c >>>> @@ -1443,7 +1443,7 @@ error: >>>> */ >>>> struct nfs_client *nfs4_set_ds_client(struct nfs_client* mds_clp, >>>> const struct sockaddr *ds_addr, >>>> - int ds_addrlen, int ds_proto) >>>> + int ds_addrlen, int ds_proto, char *ds_hostname) >>> >>> Can you make this (and the other instances below) 'const char *', so >>> that we avoid any confusion? Otherwise it looks more or less OK... >>> >>> Note that we should consider splitting da->da_remotestr into a >>> hostname/port part at some point so that we avoid the copy below. >> >> da_remotestr (and ds_remotestr) were meant to be for display only (and iirc they can actually be NULL). > > ^^ dprintk() display, that is. > >> >> The right way to do this is from the actual sin_addr (da_addr). >> >> -dros > -- 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
