Hi Neil, On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:45 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03 2017, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: Since the vsock address family is in the tin since 4.8, this argument appears to be about, precisely, tying existing pieces together. The ceph developers working on openstack manila did find the nfs over vsock use case compelling. I appreciate this because it has encouraged more interest in the cephfs community around using the standardized NFS protocol for deployment. Matt > > I think we all agree that providing something that "just works" is a > worth goal. In only question is about how much new code can be > justified, and where it should be put. > > Given that almost everything you need already exists, it seems best to > just tie those pieces together. > > NeilBrown > > >> >> The changes required to Linux and nfs-utils are related to the sunrpc >> transport and configuration. They do not introduce risks to core NFS or >> TCP/IP. I would really like to get patches merged because I currently >> have to direct interested users to building Linux and nfs-utils from >> source to try this out. >> >> Stefan -- 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
