On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 6:17 AM Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. What will be lost is that when you look at the xprt_switches directory and see switch-1... switch-10 subdirectory, there is no way to tell which rpc client uses which switch. Because each client-1 directory will only have an entry saying "switch". Anyway, I submitted the new version but I think it's not as good as the original. > > Ben >
