Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] rework access to /proc/net/rpc

[Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>]

On 12/09/2014 03:26 PM, David Härdeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 11:08:39AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> On 12/09/2014 09:01 AM, David Härdeman wrote:
>>> On 2014-12-09 09:42, Timo Teras wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:16:59 +0100
>>>> David Härdeman <david@hardeman.nu> wrote:
>>>>> At least the readline() function could be implemented using
>>>>> read/write (instead of fread/fwrite) and a dynamic buffer...no?
>>>>
>>>> It's extra complexity. I'd rather not add it unless it's required. My
>>>> understanding about the communication mechanism with kernel is that
>>>> it's not required. Why have code that would never be used?
>>>
>>> I agree that it depends on your view. I tend to be very sceptical of arbitrary 
>>> limitations unless they have a very good reason (like measurable and relevant 
>>> performance impact), I doubt that's the case here.
>> Your skeptical-ability of arbitrary limitations has become very clear in 
>> the last few hours... ;-) I guess I'm indifferent about it... From reading
>> your gssd patch set, it is a bit more artful not to use fixed size buffers
>> but again, I'm indifferent... That said... if patches appear removing these
>> fixed buffers they definitely would be considered... 
>>
>>>
>>> It's up to the maintainer though, I just wanted to point it out :)
>> My understanding these patches were needed to make nfs-utils compatible with the musl c-library.
>> That is the case, correct? 
> 
> The fread/fwrite removal seems reasonable, yes. The removal of the
> readline() function though (which could be implemented using normal
> read/malloc/realloc) seems less so.....IMHO.
> 
Patches welcome! 8-)

steved.