On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 02:13:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Sep 25, 2008, at 12:58 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> But I'm willing to settle for it and let it be a lesson to us if it >> turns out to cause more problems than expected. > > I will be here to fix it if there is a problem. In this case, this > whole NFS/IPv6 thing is so complicated that I'm implementing just what > is needed as we go along. We can fill in the niceties at a later point. > > /me is taking his cue from "lazy evaluation." OK, fair enough, barring any other objections. > Today, if CONFIG_SUNRPC_REGISTER_V4 is enabled and svc_register() can't > contact rpcbind's IPv6 listener and issue a v4 SET request, it fails and > the RPC service is shut down. > > The only area that might be trouble is when a sysadmin shuts off ALL > IPv6 in her network configuration, even if the kernel is build with IPv6 > support. The network layer should do the right thing and map the IPv6 > loopback address to the IPv4 loopback address automatically, but I > haven't tested this. > > I'm also not convinced that people will try to install a 2.6 kernel on a > distribution that was built for 2.4 or earlier kernels. There are too > many missing pieces in the old distributions (like kernel module > utilities) to make it easy. So I'm not trying to make this compatible > with every distribution since the beginning. Is it 2.4-era distributions that's really the issue? I thought the userspace rpcbind stuff was still a bit experimental--so that when the switchover is made to a kernel that supports rpcbind v4, the userspace that's required will be more recent than that. Just curious. --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
