On 3/10/22 7:00 AM, Bruce Fields wrote:
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....
I think nfsdclnt does not parse the 'status' field so we're safe to
update the status to show 'confirmed/unconfirmed/courtesy'.
-Dai
--b.
