Re: [PATCH 08/15] knfsd: spawn kernel thread to probe callback channel

2007-08-27 Thread J. Bruce Fields
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 09:26:36AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > On Monday August 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [PATCH 08/15] knfsd: spawn kernel thread to probe callback channel

2007-08-27 Thread Neil Brown
On Monday August 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. -

[PATCH 08/15] knfsd: spawn kernel thread to probe callback channel

2007-08-27 Thread J. Bruce Fields
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> We want to allow gss on the callback channel, so people using krb5 can still get the benefits of delegations. But looking up the rpc credential can take some time in that case. And we shouldn't delay the response to setclientid_confirm while we wait.

[PATCH 08/15] knfsd: spawn kernel thread to probe callback channel

2007-08-27 Thread J. Bruce Fields
From: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] We want to allow gss on the callback channel, so people using krb5 can still get the benefits of delegations. But looking up the rpc credential can take some time in that case. And we shouldn't delay the response to setclientid_confirm while we wait. It

Re: [PATCH 08/15] knfsd: spawn kernel thread to probe callback channel

2007-08-27 Thread Neil Brown
On Monday August 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. -

Re: [PATCH 08/15] knfsd: spawn kernel thread to probe callback channel

2007-08-27 Thread J. Bruce Fields
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 09:26:36AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: On Monday August 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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