On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 08:12:53AM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> 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?
I wonder what would be the use for that, as a switch is already collection of
xprts. Which would determine the switch to use per a new task IO?
--
Dan Aloni
