On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 23:28 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 19:21 -0400, Matt W. Benjamin wrote: > > Currently, the Linux and I believe also the CITI Windows client always propose channels in both directions. The Linux mainline Linux client doesn't know how to BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION, so trivially it won't negotiate any back channel if a server didn't agree to both directions today, either. I've experimentally implemented a "fallback" model in a Linux client and (partly in a) Ganesha server. I'd appreciate any feedback on the idea. > > Yep. As I said, why should we bother adding support for servers that > don't? I can function perfectly well without pNFS support or delegation > support in such a case. Performance will suck, but why do I care? To put it in more basic terms: what you are proposing will add development costs to the client and and an extra code burden to maintain long term. So what is in it for me? -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- 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
