On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:42 AM Dan Aloni <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:19:43PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > An rpc client uses a transport switch and one ore more transports
> > associated with that switch. Since transports are shared among
> > rpc clients, create a symlink into the xprt_switch directory
> > instead of duplicating entries under each rpc client.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >..
> > @@ -188,6 +204,11 @@ void rpc_sysfs_client_destroy(struct rpc_clnt *clnt)
> > struct rpc_sysfs_client *rpc_client = clnt->cl_sysfs;
> >
> > if (rpc_client) {
> > + char name[23];
> > +
> > + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "switch-%d",
> > + rpc_client->xprt_switch->xps_id);
> > + sysfs_remove_link(&rpc_client->kobject, name);
>
> Hi Olga,
>
> If a client can use a single switch, shouldn't the name of the symlink
> be just "switch"? This is to be consistent with other symlinks in
> `sysfs` such as the ones in block layer, for example in my
> `/sys/block/sda`:
>
> bdi -> ../../../../../../../../../../../virtual/bdi/8:0
> device -> ../../../5:0:0:0
I think the client is written so that in the future it might have more
than one switch?
>
>
> --
> Dan Aloni
