It looks like they may have come through after all, unfortunately I already sent them again. Apologies for the spam. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Chris Perl <chris.perl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I tried to send them to the list, but I guess they didn't come through > because my sender was set to chris.perl@xxxxxxxxx, but I ran `git > send-email' from work, so the smtp sender ip wouldn't authorized. > > I'll figure out a way to send them now. > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Trond Myklebust > <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Chris Perl <chris.perl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I just submitted two patches, one for nfs-utils and one for linux-nfs. >>> >>> As I said in my previous email, the patch to nfs-utils was enough to >>> get us farther along, but we failed inside mount(2) with EIO (with a >>> decidedly more confusing error message). >>> >>> So, I've also submitted a patch for the rpc code in the kernel that >>> also avoids bind when asking for a random ephemeral port. I've tested >>> the combination of these two patches with my system while in the >>> situation I originally outlined. I can continue to successfully mount >>> NFS filesystems using both of these patches. >>> >>> I don't particularly love the kernel patch, as it makes `xs_bind' not >>> actually bind in all circumstances, which seems confusing. However, I >>> thought trying to rework things in a larger way would cause more >>> issues given that I'm not very familiar with this code. If everyone >>> hates it, I can try something else. >> >> To whom did you submit these patches? I don't see anything in the >> linux-nfs mailing list. >> >> -- >> Trond Myklebust >> >> Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData >> >> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
