On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 11:53 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > Now we have to have this conversation again when adding any new > transport capability, such as SCTP. > Plus, to support NFSv4.1 over RDMA, you now _require_ the existence of > an IP network between client and server. This may be as minor as > ensuring IPoIB is configured on both ends, but it's still a > significant extra step for a pure SAN over RDMA environment. This > obviates the whole point of combining the forward and back channels > onto one transport. > > In my opinion you are making the developer's life simpler now and > complicating the lives of current users and admins, and future > developers. Please read what Ricardo said: this is a _first_ approximation, not a final solution. Given what they're hoping to achieve, I'm fine with doing a simple implementation of sessions first, then progressively refining it. Furthermore, there should be nothing conceptually in his design that prevents you from adapting it to other transports: it is basically just preallocating a buffer, then using that as a receive buffer when you find that you have a callback request. Trond -- 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
