Re: [PATCH 0/2] cleanups in nfs4reovery.c

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 2025-09-08 at 11:38 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> This first of these patchs is part of my work to change how directory
> locking is managed.  That will involve moving the lock as close as possible
> to the operation being locked, and using some standard interfaces 
> which combine the lock and the lookup.  Then changing the mechanics of
> taking a lock.
> 
> nfsd4_list_rec_dir() currenty locks a direct and performs a lookup
> in a different function to where the lock and lookup results are needed,
> and does it even when those are not needed at all.  So the first
> patch moves the lock and lookup to where it is needed.
> 
> The second patch (arguably) improves the calling protocol for
> nfs4_client_to_reclaim().  If people don't like this second patch I'm
> happy for it to be dropped.  It is the first patch which is particularly
> important to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
> 
> 
>  [PATCH 1/2] nfsd: move name lookup out of nfsd4_list_rec_dir()
>  [PATCH 2/2] nfsd: change nfs4_client_to_reclaim() to allocate data

I'm fine with both of these, so:

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

...this does remind me though:

Is it time to switch the default for CONFIG_NFSD_LEGACY_CLIENT_TRACKING
to N? It has been a little over a year since we added the Kconfig
option (and had it default to Y).