From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: write_ports delfd case Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:07:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20100719160703.1e686a74@tlielax.poochiereds.net> References: <20100719192158.GC9657@fieldses.org> <4C44A869.4030504@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Neil Brown , Linux NFS Mailing List To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36966 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966668Ab0GSUHQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:07:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C44A869.4030504@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:32:57 -0400 Chuck Lever wrote: > On 07/19/10 03:21 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Does anyone know what __write_ports_delfd() is meant to do? > > > > The block comment above write_ports claims it handles writes of the form > > "-", which makes no sense (the file table of the writer > > has nothing to do with anything). It's called only when the character > > after the "-" is a digit, but the names it matches against (generated by > > svc_one_sock_name()) start with "ipv4" or "ipv6". > > I suspect the comment above write_ports() is not correct. I assumed > that delfd was symmetrical with addfd, but it isn't. More likely, addfd > returns a string name that can be passed to write_ports (with a > preceding '-') to terminate the socket. Yeah -- seems broken to me. Given that it clearly doesn't work and I'm not aware of anyone having complained, perhaps it would be best to remove it? -- Jeff Layton