From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932130AbWCMLmu (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:42:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751940AbWCMLmu (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:42:50 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:18860 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751920AbWCMLmt (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:42:49 -0500 Message-ID: <44155A7E.4030804@RedHat.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:41:50 -0500 From: Steve Dickson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NeilBrown CC: Andrew Morton , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [NFS] [PATCH 000 of 14] knfsd: Introduction References: <20060309174755.24381.patches@notabene> In-Reply-To: <20060309174755.24381.patches@notabene> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org NeilBrown wrote: > The following series of patches changes the code for lookup up > authentication/authorisation caches in sunrpc as used by nfsd. That > than having a delightful macro that defines a function of a particular > type of cache, the functions are coded on a more traditional manner > using library routines. > > This will hopefully make the code more maintainable. After looking over these patches, it appears there two 'minor' things missing... comments and dprintk statements... :-) Maybe I missed them, but out of all these 14 patches (i.e. basically rewriting a critical part of kNFSD) not one comment or dprintk as added.... Now I'm sure this is a much better design that the previous one, (i.e. hide sight is always 20/20) and I'm looking forward to help iron out the nits... But without meaningful comments and a way to turn on a _few_ well placed "I failed here" type of debug messages, the design really doesn't matter since the maintainable has not improved... imho... Secondly, In a number of places, mostly in the alloc routines and in patch 006 there are if statements like: + if (ch) + return container_of(ch, struct svc_export, h); + else + return NULL; the else is simply not needed... Plus adding a dprintk like: + if (ch) + return container_of(ch, struct svc_export, h); + + dprintk("svc_export_update: returns NULL\n"); + return NULL; might make sense... assuming svc_export_update does not return NULL 99% of the time... steved.