On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 08:59:59PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-nfs- > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of J. Bruce Fields > > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 4:54 PM > > To: Schumaker, Bryan > > Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] NFSD: Create nfs v4.2 decode ops > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:57:24AM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: > > > I'm doing this in a separate patch to keep from putting in a lot of > > > extra code when I go to add operations to the server for real. > > > > Makes sense. > > > > But: now we're duplicating the list of 4.0 op decoders 3 times and the > > 4.1 ops twice. We'll never need different decoders for different > > minorversions (worst case we can test for the minorversion in the decoder if > > necessary). > > > > I wonder if there's a better way to organize this.... Maybe something more > > like a single array with > > > > [OP_SETCLIENTID] = { > > .op_decode = (nfsd4_dec)nfsd4_decode_access, > > .op_unsupported_since_version = 1, > > } > > ... > > [OP_EXCHANGE_ID] = { > > .op_decode = (nfsd4_dec)nfsd4_decode_exchange_id, > > .op_first_supported_in_version = 1, > > } > > > > ? > > Is that really necessary? Why not just have a single array and have nfsd4_decode_clientid itself check the minor version? That'd work too. Every operation that's been introduced more recently than 4.0 or that's since been deprecated would need a version check at the top of its decoder. That'd be a dozen or so. But the information has to go somewhere and perhaps that's more straightforward than sticking this in data.... OK, I'd be fine with that. --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
