These patches look good to me, but have you tested them? ;) I mean, does anyone have a server that implements SP4_MACH_CRED to test against? When I originally developed this feature, I tested against a hacked nfsd… that code was really ugly (not ready for upstreaming), but allowed me to test the client feature. IRRC the server side is difficult because the server has to keep stateid to credential mappings, so when the machine cred was used it could check access against the acting cred. If there aren’t any servers to test this against, maybe we remove this feature? It can always be revived once there is a server to test against. -dros > On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > While reviewing Tom's flexfile patches I found a few places where > nfs4_state_protect() was being called inside the generic client, rather > than in the nfsv4 module. These patches move the function calls into > the correct layer and then tidy up nfs4_fs.h once everything has been > moved. > > Thoughts? > > Anna > > > Anna Schumaker (3): > nfs: Call nfs4_state_protect() from nfs4_proc_commit_setup() > nfs: Call nfs4_state_protect_write() from nfs4_proc_write_setup() > nfs: Remove unused v4 macros > > fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c | 7 +++++-- > fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h | 7 ------- > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 9 +++++++-- > fs/nfs/proc.c | 6 ++++-- > fs/nfs/write.c | 10 ++-------- > include/linux/nfs_xdr.h | 6 ++++-- > 6 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.2.1 > > -- > 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 -- 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
