On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 15:46 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Jan 30, 2009, at Jan 30, 2009, 3:32 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > How about using something like a 'symbol_request(ipv6_getsockopt)' to > > probe whether or not IPv6 is available. > > That's a good idea. I was about to go looking for the right way to > check if the module is available. Note that this isn't really sufficient to prevent races. Somebody may remove the ipv6 module before we get so far as to setting up the sockets. > I've been discussing this with Steve. He'd like some way for lockd to > recover if only an IPv4 mount is requested, but the logic to do this > (and to report real errors on IPv6 mounts, and to handle the NFSD > cases) might get complicated. Plus, once we start lockd with an > AF_INET listener, we are stuck with IPv4-only until lockd is restarted > from scratch. > > I think we want any issues in this area to be handled at mount/export > time, and not specifically by lockd or the callback server. What do > you think? Yes and no. I thought the motivation for doing what you currently do was to avoid mixing AF_INET and AF_INET6 sockets, since the latter listen on both IPv4 (via the IPv4 mapping) and IPv6? If so, it sounds to me as if we _must_ have lockd and the callback server set up IPv6 sockets whenever they are available. Cheers 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
