On 13 May 2021, at 17:18, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:42 AM Dan Aloni <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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 >> > > Jumping back to this comment because now that I went back to try to > modify the code I'm having doubts. > > We still need numbering of xprt switches because they are different > for different mounts. So xprt_switches directory would still have > switch-0 for say a mount to server A and then switch-0 for a mount to > server B. While yes I see that for a given rpc client that's making a > link into a xprt_switches directory will only have 1 link. And "yes" > the name of the link could be "switch". But isn't it more informative > to keep this to be the same name as the name of the directory under > the xprt_switches? The information isn't lost, as the symlink points to the specific switch. Not using a number in the symlink name informs that there will only be one switch for each client and makes it more deterministic for users and software to navigate. Ben
