Janne Karhunen wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:02 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Right, that's what would make the most sense to me. Janne, is there any
> > reason that wouldn't solve your problem?
>
> I didn't get the idea. So the idea is to use multiple sockets,
> one bound to LOOPBACK and one to external interface?
I suppose so. One socket would be for communication for the local
kernel nfsd, one for communication with statd peers.
Finally got around to it again. Attached patch takes a
shot at the two socket approach. Patch is a draft to
see what you guys would really think about this
approach.
Do we really have to add so many lines of the code just to fix "statd
-n" ? Maybe we should go back to the basics by understanding the
requirement of this command ? So why do we need it (i.e. what kind of
bad things we'll see if we don't fix this) ? Some short description
would help.
-- Wendy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
