On Jan 21, 2010, at 5:52 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 06:09:17PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 5:35 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 04:10:48PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
Try to use an PF_INET6 listener for NFSD if IPv6 is enabled in the
kernel.
Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c b/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c
index 2604c3e..7ebb7a5 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c
@@ -981,6 +981,26 @@ static ssize_t __write_ports_delfd(char *buf)
return len;
}
+static ssize_t __write_ports_create_xprt(struct svc_serv *serv,
+ const char *transport,
+ const int family,
+ const unsigned short port)
+{
+ int err;
+
+ err = svc_create_xprt(serv, transport, family, port,
+ SVC_SOCK_ANONYMOUS);
+
+ if (err < 0) {
+ /* Give a reasonable perror msg for bad transport string */
+ if (err == -ENOENT)
+ err = -EPROTONOSUPPORT;
I realize you're just moving this code, not writing it, so this is a
separate question, but: it looks like it's svc_create_xprt() itself
that
chooses ENOENT for this case. Is there any reason it shouldn't just
use
EPROTONOSUPPORT from the start?
I guess this little transformation is for the benefit of rpc.nfsd? I
don't know of a reason offhand why you couldn't change
svc_create_xprt(). I don't immediately see any of svc_create_xprt's
callers that might depend on getting ENOENT, but I didn't look very
hard.
Could I talk you into writing a patch that does that, as long as
you're
touching this code?
Since we have a little time before 2.6.34, I'll look into it.
--
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
