Is this OK, or is the NULL assignment just not acceptable? Due to the
complexity of this code, I think it is a good idea to initialize
the variable...
[greearb@fs3 nfs]$ git diff
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4client.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4client.c
index d6b39a9..cdc99bd 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4client.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4client.c
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ struct nfs_client *nfs4_init_client(struct nfs_client *clp,
rpc_authflavor_t authflavour)
{
char buf[INET6_ADDRSTRLEN + 1];
- struct nfs_client *old;
+ struct nfs_client *old = NULL;
int error;
if (clp->cl_cons_state == NFS_CS_READY) {
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
index c351e6b..7103617 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
@@ -139,6 +139,8 @@ int nfs40_discover_server_trunking(struct nfs_client *clp,
switch (status) {
case -NFS4ERR_STALE_CLIENTID:
set_bit(NFS4CLNT_LEASE_CONFIRM, &clp->cl_state);
+ nfs4_schedule_state_renewal(clp);
+ break;
case 0:
/* Sustain the lease, even if it's empty. If the clientid4
* goes stale it's of no use for trunking discovery. */
[greearb@fs3 nfs]$
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
