Hey Chuck,
On 12/16/2010 03:04 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was wondering if it would be possible hold off on committing major
>> cleans ups like this one (and the RFC: Split nlm_host cache series)
>> until pNFS wave3 is committed into either Trond's tree and/or in the
>> mainline kernel.
>>
>> I realize this is a huge request to make, something we've never done
>> before. But talking with the powers to be on this end, include Ric
>> Wheeler, accepting these types of patches before the pNFS bits
>> settle down will make close to impossible for there to be any
>> meaningful pNFS support in the RHEL 6 kernels. We would have
>> to push the support off to RHEL 7.
>>
>> The reasoning is this, which I do agree with, these types of
>> patches, although probably needed, do not added any new features
>> or fix any outstanding bugs.
>
> The XDR series does add a new feature, FWIW: it adds buffer overflow
> protection to the client's reply processing logic. Says so right in the
> patch descriptions.
No... I didn't miss the "bonus" :-) Its just that these are major changes
in the bowels of the NFS code at at time when other major changes (like pNFS)
are happening... Its just a lot of change happening at once...
>
>> More likely than not (for a time) they will
>> add some instability due to the lack of usage and testing. These type of
>> changes are much too large for even our QE group to test and verify and
>> obviously instability is the last thing we can interject into an
>> on going enterprise product stream.
>
> The only NFSv4-related changes in this series are limited to refactoring.
> No behavior changes are made in the NFSv4 code. The bulk of the changes
> effect only NFSv2 and NFSv3, and will have no impact on pNFS (other than
> a minor API change).
We obviously maintaining stability in those version are important too.. ;-)
Again its just the amount of change and what is changing...
>
> XDR is straightforward and well understood. If anything is broken by these
> patches, I expect it will be exposed quickly.
>
> The NLM patches also have nothing to do with pNFS, AFAICT, and can likely
> be skipped for RHEL 6.
I have found pulling major pieces out of major release tends to have
disastrous results... Its an all or nothing thing...
>
>> Again, I realize what we are asking and how big this request
>> really is. Its just that we've come so far and are pretty close
>> (IMHO) to have some meaningful pNFS support in RHEL 6, I
>> figured I'd take a shoot and ask...
>
> I don't think these are as world-bending as you believe. I'm happy to
> discuss the actual changes with Ric.
Fantastic!
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
