On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:03:04 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 02:36:05PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > I've been looking at replacing the current scheme that knfsd uses to
> > track client_id4's (aka the v4recoverydir stuff), with an
> > upcall/downcall scheme. Primarily this is to allow for more robust
> > handling of clustered NFSv4 services.
> >
> > In the process, I've been looking at the various upcall schemes we use
> > to see which ones might be suitable to use in this effort. I've noticed
> > that we have several upcalls that use rpc_pipefs, and that all of them
> > seem to make assumptions that the userspace programs will align their
> > message structs identically to how the kernel does.
> >
> > For instance, here's the idmap one:
> >
> > struct idmap_msg {
> > __u8 im_type;
> > __u8 im_conv;
> > char im_name[IDMAP_NAMESZ];
> > __u32 im_id;
> > __u8 im_status;
> > };
>
> That's the "legacy" idmap code, right?
>
> In which case we want to leave it alone if at all possible and move
> people to the new idmapper.
>
> --b.
>
Ahh good point. No need to sweat this one then.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
