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

[Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>]

On 9/8/25 3:40 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> 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).

<shrug> Send a patch? I'm not opposed.


-- 
Chuck Lever