On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 19:26 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:20:07PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > As for the NFSv4 clientid, I can't see how you would ever want to use > > anything other than the init->utsname(), since the requirement is only > > that the clientid string be unique and preserved across reboots. The > > server isn't allowed to interpret the contents of the clientid string. > > Ditto for the RPCSEC_GSS machine creds that are used to establish the > > clientid. > > If people eventually expect to be able to, say, migrate a container to > another host while using an nfs mount as their storage, then they'd need > the name to be that of the container, not of the host. Why? > Obviously we'd also need to ensure the container got its own nfsv4 > client state, etc., etc., and it sounds like we're far from that. Again, why? Are you seriously proposing a plan to transport all NFS and locking state directly from one kernel to another? -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
