On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 03:11:29PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:40 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:27:47PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > >> > >> On Jul 7, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 15:44 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > >>> > >>>> If you would like connected UDP, I won't object to you implementing > >>>> it. However, I never tested whether a connected UDP socket will give > >>>> the desired semantics without extra code in the UDP transport (for > >>>> example, an ->sk_error callback). I don't think it's worth the > >>>> hassle > >>>> if we have to add code to UDP that only this tiny use case would > >>>> need. > >>>> > >>> > >>> OK. I'll set these patches aside until I have time to look into adding > >>> connected UDP support. > >> > >> That's not completely necessary... the one-shot + TCP changes just make > >> it nicer when the local rpcbind is not listening. Without these, the > >> cases where the rpcbind daemon isn't running, or doesn't support rpcbind > >> v3/v4 and the kernel was built with CONFIG_SUNRPC_REGISTER_V4, will cause > >> some delays before failing, but otherwise shouldn't be a problem. > >> > >> I think you can drop the patch to change rpcb registration to go over > >> TCP for now unless you already have a CUDP implementation you are happy > >> with. > > > > So actually in your original series of 7 I think that'd mean dropping > > numbers 5 and 6 and keeping the rest? > > So, 5/7 adds "one shot" support to the RPC client. I think that might > be interesting for other kernel services, like making rpcbind queries > over TCP, or NFSv4 callback. I'd like to advocate for keeping that > one so others can build on it (with whatever name for the create flag > we can agree on), but it's not really necessary for subsequent > patches. > > 6/7 changes the rpcb_register logic to use "one shot" + TCP -- that's > the one that is controversial and can be dropped. May as well at least apply the other 5? Trond is carrying other net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c patches, so they probably need to go in his tree. I guess I'll go ahead and send along versions based on latest trond/devel. --b. -- 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
