[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50F0283A.6040509@parallels.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:56:58 +0400
From: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
CC: <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH 2/6] nfsd: swap fs root in NFSd kthreads
11.12.2012 19:35, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:20:36AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 07:07:00PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
>>> I don't really understand, how mountd's root can be wrong. I.e.
>>> its' always right as I see it. NFSd kthreads have to swap/use
>>> relative path/whatever to communicate with proper mountd.
>>> Or I'm missing something?
>>
>> Ugh, I see the problem: I thought svc_export_request was called at the
>> time mountd does the read, but instead its done at the time nfsd does
>> the upcall.
>>
>> I suspect that's wrong, and we really want this done in the context of
>> the mountd process when it does the read call. If d_path is called
>> there then we have no problem.
>
> Right, so I'd be happier if we could modify sunrpc_cache_pipe_upcall to
> skip calling cache_request and instead delay that until cache_read(). I
> think that should be possible.
>
So, Bruce, what we going to do (or what you want me to do) with the rest of NFSd changes?
I.e. how I should solve this d_path() problem?
I.e. I don't understand what did you mean by "I'd be happier if we could modify sunrpc_cache_pipe_upcall to
skip calling cache_request and instead delay that until cache_read()".
Could you give me a hint?
> --b.
>
--
Best regards,
Stanislav Kinsbursky
--
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