>
> Meem, yes I thought of that.. and didn't really like the undo work be
> done later on. But I reluctantly fell on the side of keeping the canput()
> and put() as close to each other due to a mixture of sense of guilt and
> paronia.. ;)
> Your comments helped me sway the other way. (I also think the case
> of QFULL will be a special case anyway like in the case of
> lockd -> statd interaction, but that's besides the point).
>
> I've changed the code now.. and the new webrev's at:
>
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~maheshvs/6762222-webrev2/
Looks good. I haven't looked at the back-off mechanism; I presume there's
something to ensure that the system won't be pounding on this codepath if
clnt_dispatch_send() fails. A couple nits:
usr/src/uts/common/rpc/clnt_cots.c:
* 400: Could probably remove the whitespace after "static int"
and remove the need for the linewrap to 401.
* 1086, 2537, 2709: Seems like this failure should be observable
somehow -- e.g., DTrace SDT probe or the like.
* 1087: Blank line seems needless.
--
meem
