Peter Memishian wrote: > > > > 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. yes, it uses the current delay behavior which exists right now. > 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. > > nope, that doesn't prevent the linewrap. I've left it as it is. > * 1086, 2537, 2709: Seems like this failure should be observable > somehow -- e.g., DTrace SDT probe or the like. > > added. thanks. > * 1087: Blank line seems needless. > > removed.
thanks for doing the review meem! webrev's refreshed, but since it looks like there are proxy caching issues, I've copied it at: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~maheshvs/6762222-webrev3/ Mahesh
