[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18131.23980.89642.364179@notabene.brown>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:26:36 +1000
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...i.umich.edu>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] knfsd: spawn kernel thread to probe callback channel
On Monday August 27, bfields@...ldses.org wrote:
>
> +/* Reference counting, callback cleanup, etc., all look racy as heck.
> + * And why is cb_set an atomic? */
Agreed.... so do we really want this code in mainline? is the old
code so bad that this is better?
- cb_set should not be atomic.
- This looks like a job for async-rpc rather than a kernel thread
- If you do use a thread, you at least want __module_get before
starting the thread, and module_put_and_exit to terminate the
thread.
- Can you just use 'cb_client' rather than cb_set? If you move
rpc_create into the thread, you don't need to set cb_client until
the callback is successful. Then add a 'cb_active' flag bit
so that you don't have two callbacks at the same time, and it
should be less racy..
The other 14 patches all look ok.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists