J. Bruce Fields:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:32:13PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 2011, at 3:26 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 06:24:29PM +0800, Mi Jinlong wrote:
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Add scope id for LINKLOCAL address
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct in6_addr_scopeid{
>>>> + struct in6_addr sin6_addr;
>>>> + __u32 sin6_scope_id;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> union svc_addr_u {
>>>> - struct in_addr addr;
>>>> - struct in6_addr addr6;
>>>> + struct in_addr addr;
>>>> + struct in6_addr_scopeid addr6;
>>> By the way, is there any reason why nfsd really needs its own address
>>> structure? Shouldn't we use sockaddr_storage or something? I feel like
>>> we've got a little too much one-off address handling in nfsd.
>> That would be my only complaint about the patch.
>>
>> I think we chose a smaller struct here to save space, and we could do that because we didn't need a port number or scope ID. If a scope ID is indeed required, then we should consider something larger like a struct sockaddr_storage, IMO.
>
> If we care about the size of struct svc_rqst: rq_vec and rq_pages fields
> are 4k and 2k, respectively, and the rest is lost in the noise.
>
> Mi Jinlong, would you have the time to try this?
OK, I will do this.
Thanks for all comment.
--
----
thanks
Mi Jinlong
>
> - Replace svc_addr_u by sockaddr_storage
> - See of that allows us to delete some lines of code in nfsd by
> using standard helper functions instead of copying things by
> hand.
>
> You'd do that in one patch, then apply your scope-id fix on top of it as
> a second patch.
>
> --b.
> --
> 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
>
>
--
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
