On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 01:16:26PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 10:00:48AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:40:49AM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > On 06/30/2017 09:21 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > Format vsock hosts as "vsock:<cid>" so the addresses can be easily > > > > distinguished from IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > utils/mount/network.c | 8 ++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/utils/mount/network.c b/utils/mount/network.c > > > > index 281e935..b5dcaa5 100644 > > > > --- a/utils/mount/network.c > > > > +++ b/utils/mount/network.c > > > > @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ > > > > #include <rpc/pmap_prot.h> > > > > #include <rpc/pmap_clnt.h> > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/vm_sockets.h> > > > In the previous patch you had this surrounded by #ifdef AF_VSOCK > > > I'm not keen on sprinkling a bunch ifdefs around since > > > I think it makes the code harder to read. So my question > > > is why is the ifdef need in the previous patch and > > > not needed in this patch and are they needed in the > > > previous patch? > > > > The lack of #ifdef is my mistake. > > > > My impression of nfs-utils is that the code is written to work in a > > variety of configurations and still support older kernels. So I am > > wrapping AF_VSOCK logic with an #ifdef. > > It needs to be able to support older kernels at run-time, and I don't > understand how #ifdefs would help with that. I will test the nfs-utils binaries against a kernel without AF_VSOCK support. What should happen is that an error is returned when creating a socket, adding an export, etc fails. I'll make sure the errors are graceful/meaningful. Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
