On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 03:27:58AM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:09 PM, Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 3/9/22 12:51 PM, dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 3/9/22 12:14 PM, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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");
> >>
> >> make sense, will fix.
> >
> > On second thought, I think it's safer to keep this the same since
> > there might be scripts out there that depend on it.
>
> I agree we should be sensitive to potential users of this information.
> However…
>
> Without having one or two examples of such scripts in front of us,
> it’s hard to say whether my suggestion (a new keyword after “status:”)
> or your original (a new line in the file) would be more disruptive.
>
> Also I’m not seeing exactly how the output format is versioned… so
> what’s the safest way to make changes to the output format of this
> file? Anyone?
It's not versioned. It'd be good to document some rules; nfsd(7) seems
like the logical place to put that, though probably knows about it.
Pointers to it from kernel comments and elsewhere might help?
I suppose the absolute safest option would be adding a new line, but I
like the idea of adding the possibility of "courtesy" to the existing
line as you suggest, and that seems very low risk.
There is one utility, see nfs-utils/tools/nfsdclnt. I'd forgotten about
it untill I looked just now....
--b.
