Re: [PATCH 41/52] nfsd4: turn off zero-copy-read in exotic cases

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 10:24:13AM -0400, Weston Andros Adamson wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2014, at 10:10 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:18:34AM -0400, Weston Andros Adamson wrote:
> >> On May 28, 2014, at 10:23 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> There's not much point re-running all the 4.1 tests over 4.2.  Maybe all
> >>> we may need is to say "use minor version 2 on this compound" in tests of
> >>> the new features.
> >>> 
> >>> But I haven't even tried to figure out how to tell pynfs about the new
> >>> .x files.
> >> 
> >> I’ve made a lot of pynfs cleanups recently - mostly on the client test side 
> >> (the nfs4.1 server), but they may make this a bit easier. I’ll clean them up
> >> and share asap.
> >> 
> >> I was just adding new xdr to pynfs and AFAIK it's xdrgen has no include
> >> support, so we’re stuck tacking things on the end of nfs4.x. Would it be
> >> worthwhile for me to add some type of include support? Minor versions and
> >> layouts could stay in separate .x files - that sounds much cleaner to me.
> > 
> > That does sound cleaner, but is that how the ietf's .x files work?
> > 
> > It looks like
> > 
> >  http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-26.txt
> > 
> > just copies all the 4.1 definitions.
> > 
> > I may not understand what you're proposing.
> 
> Oh, yeah. I was thinking more about layouts - like the flex file draft - that don’t
> repeat definitions and instead reference other xdr definitions.

OK, I don't really care about those yet--however you think it makes
sense is fine to me....  If we can use the ietf's files verbatim then
that will simplify keeping up with drafts and verifying we have the
protocol right, so we should support includes if they use them.

> I don’t know if there is any restriction in the IETF that all types within a .x
> have to be defined by that .x. If not, does it make sense to change the 4.2
> spec to only have new types, or to prune out the differences for pynfs?

I guess that's a question for Tom and/or the ietf list.

--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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux