Re: [PATCH v2] register NFS_ACL with rpcbind

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

On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Peter Staubach wrote:
> 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?

As far as I know, there is no "meantime" in this case.  2.6.33 is the  
next merge window.

I don't have a problem with getting rid of .vs_hidden anyway... all  
I'm saying is maybe you don't have to work too hard at it.  :-)

--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com