> On Mar 4, 2022, at 7:37 PM, Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Update client_info_show to show state of courtesy client
> and time since last renew.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> index bced09014e6b..ed14e0b54537 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> @@ -2439,7 +2439,8 @@ static int client_info_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> {
> struct inode *inode = m->private;
> struct nfs4_client *clp;
> - u64 clid;
> + u64 clid, hrs;
> + u32 mins, secs;
>
> clp = get_nfsdfs_clp(inode);
> if (!clp)
> @@ -2451,6 +2452,12 @@ static int client_info_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> seq_puts(m, "status: confirmed\n");
> else
> seq_puts(m, "status: unconfirmed\n");
> + seq_printf(m, "courtesy client: %s\n",
> + test_bit(NFSD4_CLIENT_COURTESY, &clp->cl_flags) ? "yes" : "no");
I'm wondering if it would be more economical to combine this
output with the status output just before it so we have only
one of:
seq_puts(m, "status: unconfirmed\n");
seq_puts(m, "status: confirmed\n");
or
seq_puts(m, "status: courtesy\n");
> + hrs = div_u64_rem(ktime_get_boottime_seconds() - clp->cl_time,
> + 3600, &secs);
> + mins = div_u64_rem((u64)secs, 60, &secs);
> + seq_printf(m, "time since last renew: %02ld:%02d:%02d\n", hrs, mins, secs);
Thanks, this seems more friendly than what was here before.
However if we replace the fixed courtesy timeout with a
shrinker, I bet some courtesy clients might lie about for
many more that 99 hours. Perhaps the left-most format
specifier could be just "%lu" and the rest could be "%02u".
(ie, also turn the "d" into "u" to prevent ever displaying
a negative number of time units).
> seq_printf(m, "name: ");
> seq_quote_mem(m, clp->cl_name.data, clp->cl_name.len);
> seq_printf(m, "\nminor version: %d\n", clp->cl_minorversion);
> --
> 2.9.5
>
--
Chuck Lever
