Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Apr 1996 02:06:26 +0100 (BST) | From | Bryn Paul Arnold Jones <> | Subject | Re: nfsiod issues? |
| |
On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Olaf Kirch wrote: > On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:18:31 CDT, "Larry 'Daffy' Daffner" wrote: [......] > > It seems strongly against the concept of loadable modules to me, > > especially with kerneld. > > In this case, probably kerneld should be fixed to run `killall -TERM nfsiod' > before unloading the module. > > Olaf
Hmm, shouldent the nfs module have no kernel threads running when it's not in use (compiled in/insmoded, but no mounts (yet/anymore) ).
Ie only have nfsiod(s) about when nfs is activly (sp?) being used, or activly trying to mount one (activly means we have a nfs tree imported now).
You (we) could have one nfsiod per imported tree, instead of 4 all at once which would make more sense from a user point of view, but I don't know from an implementation point of view.
I would have thought that keeping n processes up to date with each other would be a real pain, but thing's must be differant in a kernel thread, but letting a one process watch the activity on a nfs mounted tree.
Bryn -- PGP key pass phrase forgotten, \ Overload -- core meltdown sequence again :( | initiated. / This space is intentionally left | blank, apart from this text ;-) \____________________________________
| |