On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 01:03:23PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Jan 25, 2008, at 6:15 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> If the reply cache initialization fails due to a kmalloc failure, >> currently we try to soldier on with a reduced (or nonexistant) reply >> cache. >> >> Better to just fail immediately: the failure is then much easier to >> understand and debug, and it could save us complexity in some later >> code. (But actually, it doesn't help currently because the cache is >> also turned off in some odd failure cases; we should probably find a >> better way to handle those failure cases some day.) >> >> Fix some minor style problems while we're at it, and rename >> nfsd_cache_init() to remove the need for a comment describing it. >> >> Acked-by: NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> --- >> fs/nfsd/nfscache.c | 28 +++++++++++++--------------- >> fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c | 11 +++++++---- >> include/linux/nfsd/cache.h | 4 ++-- >> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfscache.c b/fs/nfsd/nfscache.c >> index 578f2c9..92cb5ae 100644 >> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfscache.c >> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfscache.c >> @@ -44,17 +44,18 @@ static int nfsd_cache_append(struct svc_rqst >> *rqstp, struct kvec *vec); >> */ >> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cache_lock); >> >> -void >> -nfsd_cache_init(void) >> +int >> +nfsd_reply_cache_init(void) > > I'm surprised this got by the style police.
Hmm. checkpatch.pl doesn't seem to catch that. Anyway, fair enough, fixed, and... >> void >> -nfsd_cache_shutdown(void) >> +nfsd_reply_cache_shutdown(void) > > Likewise. ... also fixed. Thanks. --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
