On Thu, Aug 03 2017, Matt Benjamin wrote: > 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. No, it is about adding new, unnecessary pieces into various places. > 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. I'm sure the ceph developers find zero-conf NFS a compelling use case. I would be surprised if they care whether it is over vsock or IPv6. But I'm losing interest here. I'm not a gate-keeper. If you can convince Steve/Trond/Anna/Brice to accept your code, then good luck to you. I don't think a convincing case has been made though. NeilBrown > > 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
