On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 11:51:47AM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 19:03 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:33:18PM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote: > > > > > > Create a transport independent version of the svc_sock_names function. > > > > > > The toclose capability of the svc_sock_names service can be implemented > > > using the svc_xprt_find and svc_xprt_close services. > > > > Should we delete the toclose checks from svc_sock_names(), then, under > > the assumption it's always called with toclose non-NULL now? > > > > And why can't we just completely replace svc_sock_names() at this point? > > > > IMO we could, but there is currently a difference in behavior between > svc_sock_names and svc_find_xprt/close. svc_find_xprt doesn't care what > the IP address is, it only compares transport name, address family and > port. > > Presently in NFS, we only ever listen on zero, but you can destroy an > endpoint on a particular interface (IP address). Can anyone shed some > light on why this is?
Dunno. Neil? --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
