Roland Dreier wrote:
> > 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?
I think Tom's changelog is misleading.
Yes, it should read "A transport may fail for some reason other than
EAFNOSUPPORT."
The problem is that the RDMA
transport actually does support IPv6, but it doesn't support the
IPV6ONLY option yet. So if NFS/RDMA binds to a port for IPv4, then the
IPv6 bind fails because of the port collision.
Should we fail INET4 if INET6 fails under any circumstances?
Implementing the IPV6ONLY option for RDMA binding is probably not
feasible for 2.6.34, so the best band-aid for now seems to be Tom's
patch.
- R.
--
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
