Hey Chuck, On 09/02/2010 04:15 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2010, at 4:00 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> The mounting code that process RMDA mounts is broken in a few places >> >> First with '-o proto=rdma' was broken because nfs_get_proto() >> did not how to convert a netid of 'rdma' in to a AF_INET >> address family. > > The usual solution for that is to add appropriate definitions to /etc/netconfig. > Since "rdma" is going to become (or has become) a valid "IETF standard" netid, > shouldn't this be handled just like the other netids? No.. because it is not a netid... when 'rdma' become a netid we'll treat like one. Until the then let treat like we always have been... > At some point "rdma" is going to start showing up in rpcbind, > so this is going to have to work like a normal netid. When this happen I will be more that willing to accept the patches that will add support for the new netid. > >> Secondly, '-o rdma' was broken because po_get() was being using >> to detect the existence of 'rdma' in the options. With '-o rdma' >> there is no value associated with that option so po_get() >> was always return NULL. > > This should be handled just the same way the "udp" and "tcp" mount > options are handled, in nfs_nfs_protocol(). Just add an entry for > "rdma" in nfs_transport_opttbl. The problem is we don't have an > IPPROTO_ number for RDMA, so you'll have to make one up. Exactly... And I was not about to make up a IPPROTO_ number I just think that's crazy... Plus it turns out we didn't need to. All that's needed is for the address family to be set to AF_INET, from what Tom said. So it makes total sense put the check in nfs_get_proto() > What does the kernel do in these cases? I took a quick look it appears they use IPPROTO_TCP (see xprt_setup_rdma()) but it appears they did not make up a IPPROTO_ number. > >> This patch address both those problems. > > Let's not riddle the mount code with these ad hoc string comparisons when > we've already got plenty adequate generic support for adding new transport labels. Riddle?? I'm condensing two existing (broken) if statements and adding a third... I'm a bit taken back by your verbiage... I see changes to be very unobtrusive and clean... with the befit of them working... ;-) steved. -- 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
