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
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.
-
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.
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
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.
-
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
6 matches
Mail list logo