On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:56 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yep, it's reasonable to get these circulating to ensure they don't cause any unwanted side effects for standard rpcbindv2/IPv4 usage. We just need to take care these don't get too badly re-ordered when merging all this back together when 2.6.27 opens. -- Chuck Lever -- 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
