On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:16 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Do we really have to add so many lines of the code just to fix "statd > > -n" Which is why I offered the small patch initially; it was mentioned that intrusiveness does not matter if it can be kept in userspace. > > ? 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. > > I recall two reasons for -n given in this thread; I think one was just > security (maybe you don't want statd listening on some ports, for > whatever reason. The other was a code comment quoted here: That being one.. > http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=120854237320424&w=2 > > > "This is required to support clients that ignore the mon_name in > the statd protocol but use the source address from the request > packet." This another, and the third the fact that this way mon_name stays the same on server failover to node that has different name. It identifies the server instance.. > Which I don't completely understand. I guess it was meant as a way to > ensure that *outgoing* packets are sent from the correct (floating) ip > address? Right. -- // Janne -- 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
