On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 08:47:47AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 10:26 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch series rebases "localio" changes that Hammerspace (and > > Primary Data before it) has been carrying since 2014. The reason they > > weren't proposed for upstream inclusion until now was the handshake > > for whether or not a client and server are local was brittle. Please > > see the commit header of "nfs/localio: discontinue network address > > based localio setup" (patch 20) for more context. > > > > Aside from rebasing the original changes (patches 1 - 18) from a > > 5.15.-130-stable kernel, my contribution to this series was to make > > the localio handshake more robust. To do so a new LOCALIO protocol > > extension has been added to both NFS v3 and v4. It follows the > > well-worn pattern established by the ACL protocol extension. > > > > These changes have proven stable against various test scenarios: > > 1) client and server both on localhost (for both v3 and v4.2) > > 2) various permutations of client and server support enablement for > > both local and remote client and server. > > 3) client on host, server within a container (for both v3 and v4.2) > > > > I've preserved all established author and Signed-off-by attribution > > despite Andy, Peng and Jeff no longer working for Primary Data (or > > Hammerspace). I've confirmed with Trond that its best to keep it all > > despite those email addresses no longer being active. My Signed-off- > > by > > and that of reviewers and maintainer(s) to follow will build on the > > established development provenance. > > > > I also made sure to preserve the original work done by others (rather > > than fold changes that I add to this work, to avoid tainting the long > > established development and sequence of changes). > > > > Honestly, I don't give a fig about the historical changes here. I'd > _much_ rather see a more logical folded patchset that avoids a lot of > the "churn". Given the long timescale of this series, the history is > just not terribly useful. Fair, will do (and this answers the question I just asked in response to a different patch). > For instance, you're adding in the old network address tracking in the > earlier patches and then remove that in patch #20, which just means I > have to review a bunch of stuff that is ultimately going away. I'll > still review the set you've posted, but I think folding down the > changes would be best. Yeah, I just wanted to not be excessive with folding patches -- purely to preserve the evolution of these changes (given the different authors, etc). But I agree with you, and will sort it out for v2. Mike
