On Jun 8, 2015, at 4:47 PM, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:02:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >> >> On Jun 5, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Andy Adamson <androsadamson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Trond Myklebust >>> <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Clean up: Merge bc_send() into bc_svc_process(). >>>> >>>> Note: even thought this touches svc.c, it is a client-side change. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> include/linux/sunrpc/bc_xprt.h | 1 - >>>> net/sunrpc/Makefile | 2 +- >>>> net/sunrpc/bc_svc.c | 63 ------------------------------------------ >>>> net/sunrpc/svc.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++------ >>>> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-) >>>> delete mode 100644 net/sunrpc/bc_svc.c >>>> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sunrpc/bc_xprt.h b/include/linux/sunrpc/bc_xprt.h >>>> index 2ca67b55e0fe..8df43c9f11dc 100644 >>>> --- a/include/linux/sunrpc/bc_xprt.h >>>> +++ b/include/linux/sunrpc/bc_xprt.h >>>> @@ -37,7 +37,6 @@ void xprt_complete_bc_request(struct rpc_rqst *req, uint32_t copied); >>>> void xprt_free_bc_request(struct rpc_rqst *req); >>>> int xprt_setup_backchannel(struct rpc_xprt *, unsigned int min_reqs); >>>> void xprt_destroy_backchannel(struct rpc_xprt *, unsigned int max_reqs); >>>> -int bc_send(struct rpc_rqst *req); >>>> >>>> /* >>>> * Determine if a shared backchannel is in use >>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/Makefile b/net/sunrpc/Makefile >>>> index 15e6f6c23c5d..1b8e68d0e690 100644 >>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/Makefile >>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/Makefile >>>> @@ -15,6 +15,6 @@ sunrpc-y := clnt.o xprt.o socklib.o xprtsock.o sched.o \ >>>> sunrpc_syms.o cache.o rpc_pipe.o \ >>>> svc_xprt.o >>>> sunrpc-$(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG) += debugfs.o >>>> -sunrpc-$(CONFIG_SUNRPC_BACKCHANNEL) += backchannel_rqst.o bc_svc.o >>>> +sunrpc-$(CONFIG_SUNRPC_BACKCHANNEL) += backchannel_rqst.o >>>> sunrpc-$(CONFIG_PROC_FS) += stats.o >>>> sunrpc-$(CONFIG_SYSCTL) += sysctl.o >>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/bc_svc.c b/net/sunrpc/bc_svc.c >>>> deleted file mode 100644 >>>> index 15c7a8a1c24f..000000000000 >>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/bc_svc.c >>>> +++ /dev/null >>>> @@ -1,63 +0,0 @@ >>>> -/****************************************************************************** >>>> - >>>> -(c) 2007 Network Appliance, Inc. All Rights Reserved. >>>> -(c) 2009 NetApp. All Rights Reserved. >>>> - >>>> -NetApp provides this source code under the GPL v2 License. >>>> -The GPL v2 license is available at >>>> -http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php. >>>> - >>>> -THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS >>>> -"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT >>>> -LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR >>>> -A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR >>>> -CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, >>>> -EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, >>>> -PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR >>>> -PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF >>>> -LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING >>>> -NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS >>>> -SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. >>>> - >>>> -******************************************************************************/ >>> >>> Why is the above being removed? >> >> Hi Andy- >> >> Interesting question, and IANAL. >> >> Where should the boilerplate go if the below function is merged into >> existing generic server code? I suppose we could fold the NetApp >> copyright into the comment at the top of net/sunrpc/svc.c , but the >> merged code is paraphrased rather than copied directly. >> >> Suggestions/opinions are welcome. > > I don't know, the above looks like pretty generic boilerplate, and I'd > rather not accumulate a that kind of thing every time we move a > significant piece of code around. Could we compromise by adding a line > or two to net/sunrpc/svc.c following the existing convention there? > ("backchannel implementation originally (c) 2007 Network Appliance and > (c) 2009 Netapp", or similar?) Not a lawyer either, just looking for a > way to keep it both honest and concise…. Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking. Sorry I wasn’t clear. -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]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
