On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 19:20 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 16:08 -0800, Matt Helsley wrote: > > IMHO This seems more incorrect than trying to use a more proximal > > namespace. > > You have yet to explain why. It's "more proximal" -- it's closer to the container that we expect to cause (directly or otherwise) the bulk of the RPC calls for that mount. If the container does not wind up sharing that mount with other containers then the reported node name matches. If the container winds up sharing the mount with other containers then at least we can learn which container originated the mount. I imagine an NFS administrator trying to determine the source of a bunch of RPC calls. If we just report the initial namespace then that administrator has to do lots more digging to determine which container sent the calls (assuming they aren't in different network namespaces). By not always reporting the initial namespace we may give the administrator one way to narrow down the search. Even if the reported node name does not perfectly match the source of all RPC traffic related to the mount at least the administrator gets something more specific. Cheers, -Matt Helsley -- 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
