Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:51:31 +0400 | From | Stanislav Kinsbursky <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 04/11] SUNRPC: parametrize svc creation calls with portmapper flag |
| |
19.09.2011 18:08, Jeff Layton пишет: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:13:51 +0400 > Stanislav Kinsbursky<skinsbursky@parallels.com> wrote: > >> This new flag ("setup_rpcbind) will be used to detect, that new service will >> send portmapper register calls. For such services we will create rpcbind >> clients and remove all stale portmap registrations. >> Also, svc_rpcb_cleanup() will be set as sv_shutdown callback for such services >> in case of this field wasn't initialized earlier. This will allow to destroy >> rpcbind clients when no other users of them left. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsbursky<skinsbursky@parallels.com> >> >> --- >> include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h | 2 ++ >> net/sunrpc/svc.c | 21 ++++++++++++++------- >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h b/include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h >> index 223588a..528952a 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h >> +++ b/include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h >> @@ -402,11 +402,13 @@ struct svc_procedure { >> * Function prototypes. >> */ >> struct svc_serv *svc_create(struct svc_program *, unsigned int, >> + int setup_rpcbind, > ^^^ > Instead of adding this parameter, why not > base this on the vs_hidden flag in the > svc_version? IOW, have a function that looks at > all the svc_versions for a particular > svc_program, and returns "true" if any of them > have vs_hidden unset? The mechanism you're > proposing here has the potential to be out of > sync with the vs_hidden flag. >
Could you, please, clarify me this vs_hidden flag? I understand, that it's used to avoid portmap registration. But as I see, it's set only for nfs_callback_version1. But this svc_version is a part of nfs4_callback_program with nfs_callback_version4, which is not hidden. Does this flag is missed here? If not, how we can return "true" from your proposed function if any of them have vs_hidden unset?
Also sockets for this program are created with SVC_SOCK_ANONYMOUS flag and we will not register any of this program versions with portmapper. Thus, from my pow, this vs_hidden flag affects only svc_unregister. And only nfs_callback_version1. This looks really strange.
I.e. if we use this flag only for passing through this versions during svc_(un)register, and we actually also want to pass through nfs_callback_version4 as well (but just missed this vs_hidden flag for it), then with current patch-set we can move this flag from (vs_hidden) svc_version to svc_program and check it during svc_create instead of my home-brew "setup_rpcbind" variable.
> Also, if you're adding an argument to a > function like this, you you really ought to > change the callers in the same patch. Otherwise > you'll cause a build break if someone tries to > bisect and ends up between the patch that > changes the function and the one that changes > the callers. > >> void (*shutdown)(struct svc_serv *)); >> struct svc_rqst *svc_prepare_thread(struct svc_serv *serv, >> struct svc_pool *pool); >> void svc_exit_thread(struct svc_rqst *); >> struct svc_serv * svc_create_pooled(struct svc_program *, unsigned int, >> + int setup_rpcbind, >> void (*shutdown)(struct svc_serv *), >> svc_thread_fn, struct module *); >> int svc_set_num_threads(struct svc_serv *, struct svc_pool *, int); >> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc.c b/net/sunrpc/svc.c >> index f31e5cc..03231d5 100644 >> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc.c >> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc.c >> @@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ static void svc_rpcb_cleanup(struct svc_serv *serv) >> */ >> static struct svc_serv * >> __svc_create(struct svc_program *prog, unsigned int bufsize, int npools, >> - void (*shutdown)(struct svc_serv *serv)) >> + int setup_rpcbind, void (*shutdown)(struct svc_serv *serv)) >> { >> struct svc_serv *serv; >> unsigned int vers; >> @@ -437,29 +437,36 @@ __svc_create(struct svc_program *prog, unsigned int bufsize, int npools, >> spin_lock_init(&pool->sp_lock); >> } >> >> - /* Remove any stale portmap registrations */ >> - svc_unregister(serv); >> + if (setup_rpcbind) { >> + if (svc_rpcb_setup(serv)< 0) { >> + kfree(serv->sv_pools); >> + kfree(serv); >> + return NULL; >> + } >> + if (!serv->sv_shutdown) >> + serv->sv_shutdown = svc_rpcb_cleanup; >> + } >> >> return serv; >> } >> >> struct svc_serv * >> svc_create(struct svc_program *prog, unsigned int bufsize, >> - void (*shutdown)(struct svc_serv *serv)) >> + int setup_rpcbind, void (*shutdown)(struct svc_serv *serv)) >> { >> - return __svc_create(prog, bufsize, /*npools*/1, shutdown); >> + return __svc_create(prog, bufsize, /*npools*/1, setup_rpcbind, shutdown); >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(svc_create); >> >> struct svc_serv * >> svc_create_pooled(struct svc_program *prog, unsigned int bufsize, >> - void (*shutdown)(struct svc_serv *serv), >> + int setup_rpcbind, void (*shutdown)(struct svc_serv *serv), >> svc_thread_fn func, struct module *mod) >> { >> struct svc_serv *serv; >> unsigned int npools = svc_pool_map_get(); >> >> - serv = __svc_create(prog, bufsize, npools, shutdown); >> + serv = __svc_create(prog, bufsize, npools, setup_rpcbind, shutdown); >> >> if (serv != NULL) { >> serv->sv_function = func; >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >
-- Best regards, Stanislav Kinsbursky -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |