On Feb 4, 2009, at Feb 4, 2009, 1:20 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 10:59 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Feb 3, 2009, at Feb 3, 2009, 5:16 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 08:26 +1030, Ian Dall wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 16:52 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
Simply define a helper near nfs_sockaddr_match_ipaddr(), included
inside the "#if defined(CONFIG_IPV6)," that handles port
comparison,
and call that from nfs_match_client().
Eventually we will probably extract all of this address family-
specific kruft into something that can be shared amongst all of
the
NFS-related components, so it will likely end up split out this
way in
any event.
OK here is version 2 of the patch. It is half the size of version
1,
although the resultant client.c is slightly bigger and IMO slightly
inferior than for version 1, but certainly it is around the margin.
Trond, how come 9082a5cc doesn't change nfs_match_client() to use
mapped-IPv4 address comparison? Was that just an oversight, or do
these two functions really require different address comparison
methods?
It wasn't an oversight. I figure that if someone is mounting using a
mapped IPv4 address, then they want to use an IPv6 socket, hence I
preferred not to touch nfs_match_client().
OTOH, nfs_find_client() is used only by the callback channel, which
doesn't distinguish between requests made over IPv4 and IPv6.
Right. So, then, can nfs_match_client() use the same address
comparison method as nfs_find_client()? I'm inclined to think
nfs_match_client() can use a more straightforward address comparison
method.
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
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
