On Fri, 05 Jul 2024, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 02:31:46PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > Some new layout misses the entire point of having localio work for > > NFSv3 and NFSv4. NFSv3 is very ubiquitous. > > I'm getting tird of bringing up this "oh NFSv3" again and again without > any explanation of why that matters for communication insides the > same Linux kernel instance with a kernel that obviously requires > patching. Why is running an obsolete protocol inside the same OS > instance required. Maybe it is, but if so it needs a very good > explanation. I would like to see a good explanation for why NOT NFSv3. I don't think NFSv3 is obsolete. The first dictionary is "No longer in use." which certainly doesn't apply. I think "deprecated" is a more relevant term. I believe that NFSv2 has been deprecated. I believe that NFSv4.0 should be deprecated. But I don't see any reason to consider NFSv3 to be deprecated. > > > And in this localio series, flexfiles is trained to use localio. > > (Which you apparently don't recognize or care about because nfsd > > doesn't have flexfiles server support). > > And you fail to explain why it matters. You are trying to sell this > code, you better have an explanation why it's complicated and convoluted > as hell. So far we are running in circles but there has been no clear > explanation of use cases. Please avoid sweeping statements like "complicated and convoluted" without backing them up with specifics. I don't particularly want to defend the current localio protocol, and I certainly see a number of points which can and must be improved. But it isn't clear to me that the big picture is either complicated or convoluted. Please provide details. Thanks, NeilBrown
