Re: [PATCH] nbd: correct disconnect behavior

[Paul Clements]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:20:37 -0400 Paul Clements <paul.clements@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/