Re: [PATCH 2/2] NFSv4: Fix callback server shutdown

[bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:07:07PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 18:03 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 11:54:48AM +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 4/27/2017 11:24, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 11:06 +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is only one use of svc_set_num_threads that by nfsd,
> > > > > I'd like to change svc_set_num_threads and update nfsd than add
> > > > > a new
> > > > > function.
> > > > 
> > > > You can't really combine the two methods. Either you choose
> > > > signals or
> > > > you choose kthread_stop(). The problem is that signals require
> > > > the
> > > > thread to be able to persist past the nfsd_destroy() (which again
> > > > forces things like nfsd() having to take nfsd_mutex), or you have
> > > > to
> > > > make things synchronous, in which case having nfsd() try to take
> > > > nfsd_mutex causes deadlocks.
> > > > 
> > > > IOW: if there is legacy behaviour here that requires the signal
> > > > method,
> > > > then knfsd cannot be converted.
> > > 
> > > Got it.
> > > 
> > > Tested-and-reviewed-by: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@gmail.com>
> > 
> > So does what I have in git://linux-nfs.org/~bfields/linux.git nfsd-
> > next
> > look correct?
> > 
> > (Alternatively, if Trond's taking this through his tree, that's fine
> > too, feel free to add my ACK.)
> > 
> If you've already got it queued up then I'm fine with that. I have it
> in my "testing" branch (which passes ☺) but haven't yet moved it into
> linux-next.

OK, I'll take it.

--b.