On 12/14/07 1:55 PM, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:32:17PM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote:
>> @@ -1053,11 +1060,10 @@ svc_tcp_accept(struct svc_sock *svsk)
>> else if (err != -EAGAIN && net_ratelimit())
>> printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: accept failed (err %d)!\n",
>>   serv->sv_name, -err);
>> -  return;
>> +  return NULL;
>> }
>>  
>> set_bit(SK_CONN, &svsk->sk_flags);
>> - svc_sock_enqueue(svsk);
>>  
>> err = kernel_getpeername(newsock, sin, &slen);
>> if (err < 0) {
> 
> Why did we need that svc_sock_enqueue here, and why don't we any more?

Calling svc_sock_enqueue while holding the BUSY bit is a no-op. We can
certainly break this out and update the comment.

quoted text
> (And if we don't, but we still need the set_bit, then we need to fix the
> comment at the top of the file claiming the svc_sock_enqueue() is always
> required after setting SK_CONN.)

We need to call svc_sock_enqueue, but it is done indirectly through
svc_sock_received -- that calls svc_sock_enqueue after clearing the BUSY
bit. 

quoted text
> 
> --b.


-
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