Hi Tom- On 04/01/2010 06:48 PM, Tom Tucker wrote:
Hi Bruce/Chuck, RDMA Transports are currently broken in 2.6.34 because they don't have a V4ONLY setsockopt. So what happens is that when write_ports attempts to create the PF_INET6 transport it fails because the port is already in use. There is discussion on linux-rdma about how to fix this, but in the interim and perhaps indefinitely, I propose the following: Tom nfsd: Make INET6 transport creation failure an informational message The write_ports code will fail both the INET4 and INET6 transport creation if the transport returns an error when PF_INET6 is specified. Some transports that do not support INET6 return an error other than EAFNOSUPPORT.
That's the real bug. Any reason the RDMA RPC transport can't return EAFNOSUPPORT in this case?
We should allow communication on INET4 even if INET6 is not yet supported or fails for some reason.
Yes, that's why EAFNOSUPPORT is ignored in __write_ports(). People complain when they see messages like this, even if the result is a working configuration.
Signed-off-by: Tom Tucker <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c | 6 ++++-- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c b/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c index 0f0e77f..934b624 100644 --- a/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c @@ -1008,8 +1008,10 @@ static ssize_t __write_ports_addxprt(char *buf) err = svc_create_xprt(nfsd_serv, transport, PF_INET6, port, SVC_SOCK_ANONYMOUS); - if (err < 0 && err != -EAFNOSUPPORT) - goto out_close; + if (err < 0) + printk(KERN_INFO "nfsd: Error creating PF_INET6 listener " + "for transport '%s'\n", transport); + return 0; out_close: xprt = svc_find_xprt(nfsd_serv, transport, PF_INET, port);
-- 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
