Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] nbd: correct disconnect behavior
- To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...133...>
- Cc: "nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net" <nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...25...>
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] nbd: correct disconnect behavior
- From: Paul Clements <paul.clements@...856...>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:25:44 -0400
- Message-id: <CAECXXi4DpXx2A_5pHXi5aM8avRM8EScCXjB1sdrXu6nizyAzaA@...18...>
- In-reply-to: <20130627152800.494a6043607a62feb35e9739@...133...>
- References: <20130619210918.DF616222D8@...1360...> <20130626162107.9237360f7646ec25f23cf5aa@...133...> <CAECXXi54NUvQLY1O0oWKqgDpdXWUCCcs_4jJkRJE29DctMYVUA@...18...> <20130627152800.494a6043607a62feb35e9739@...133...>
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...133...> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:20:37 -0400 Paul Clements <paul.clements@...856...> wrote:
> OK, but. "Would it be safer to clear ->disconnect in NBD_DO_IT?"
About the same in terms of safety. Both ioctls have to be called to
set up the device and neither can be called again, until the device is
reset.
> If not safer, would it be cleaner?
I don't know, seems like a toss up. NBD_SET_SOCK is the earliest place
that the socket might conceivably be usable, so I wanted to clear
disconnect there (e.g., in case an alternate/new version of NBD_DO_IT,
as has been discussed, is ever implemented).
>> > The cool kids are using bool lately ;)
>> >
>>
>> Hey, maybe I want to be able to compile with gcc 2.7.2 ? :)
>
> Sob, I miss 2.7.2. It was a good 50% faster than the new improved
> models. But I don't think this yearning makes us cool.
No, I think it just makes us old :)
Reply to: