From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Tucker Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/38] svc: Add an svc transport class Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:26:24 -0600 Message-ID: <1197937584.13463.44.camel@trinity.ogc.int> References: <20071213184506.GA29496@fieldses.org> <20071217174535.GA13515@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: NeilBrown , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from 209-198-142-2-host.prismnet.net ([209.198.142.2]:59344 "EHLO smtp.opengridcomputing.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754582AbXLRAVH (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:21:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071217174535.GA13515@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 12:45 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 03:40:41AM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote: > > > > > > > > On 12/13/07 12:45 PM, "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: > > > > > Sorry for joining in a little late.... > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:31:54PM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote: > > >> +int svc_reg_xprt_class(struct svc_xprt_class *xcl) > > > > > > None of the callers appear to check the return value, so this should > > > probably be a void return. > > > > > > > I don't feel strongly about this, but what I was trying to catch was two > > different transports accidentally colliding on the same name. I doubt there > > will be a run on new transports, but it would at least fail the module load > > with a reasonable error. > > Sounds fine. Great, done. I've coded all of the changes that you suggested and built a new patchset. Besides the tests I outlined in my "test matrix" are there any other tests you would like to see performed? I could not reproduce the BUG_ON from Bull. I'm wondering if it's a PPC issue :-\ After the testing, I'll publish the revised patchset. > > Thanks!--b.