From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] register NFS_ACL with rpcbind Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:44:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4AF1CB83.2090204@redhat.com> References: <4AEF2D19.5090409@redhat.com> <4AEF562B.9070606@redhat.com> <200911031013.27247.agruen@suse.de> <200911031017.41564.okir@suse.de> <4AF04C2A.4020203@redhat.com> <2009D157-24A6-442E-9BBB-D93690A17BFE@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Olaf Kirch , Andreas Gruenbacher , NFS list , "J. Bruce Fields" To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8494 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753625AbZKDSoZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:44:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <2009D157-24A6-442E-9BBB-D93690A17BFE@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Chuck Lever wrote: > On Nov 3, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Peter Staubach wrote: >> Olaf Kirch wrote: >>> On Tuesday 03 November 2009 10:13:27 Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >>>> I don't understand the reasoning behind .vs_hidden for NFS_ACL, >>>> hopefully >>>> Olaf can clarify. NFS_ACL is the only user of .vs_hidden as far as I >>>> can >>>> see though, so if this is changeg, shouldn't the entire commit bc5fea4 >>>> which introduced the flag be reverted? >>> >>> I can't remember the details of that one. I do remember that this is >>> based on someone's request who told me that we shouldn't register nfsacl >>> with portmap. I didn't check myself whether Solaris did or did not do >>> it at that time. >>> >>> I have no issue with reverting that change, and removing the whole >>> .vs_hidden kludge too. >>> >> >> It seems that vs_hidden is used in 1 place outside of the NFS_ACL >> server code. It is used in the NFSv4 callback code. >> >> I will look to see how difficult that might be to fix this spot >> as well and then get rid of vs_hidden. > > See archive of this mailing list from earlier in October. This change > was added because it's hard to get rid of the svc_unregister() call done > by svc_create(). > > I have another solution for that problem that I'm preparing for 2.6.33. > Cool. In the meantime, can we get this one in, Bruce? Thanx... ps