2007-12-14 23:37:21

by J. Bruce Fields

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/38] svc: Add transport hdr size for defer/revisit

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:33:09PM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote:
>
> Some transports have a header in front of the RPC header. The current
> defer/revisit processing considers only the iov_len and arg_len to
> determine how much to back up when saving the original request
> to revisit. Add a field to the rqstp structure to save the size
> of the transport header so svc_defer can correctly compute
> the start of a request.

I know I asked before, and can't remember what happened: has this been
tested with krb5p? (I know nobody cares much whether krb5p/rdma works,
I just want to make sure krb5p/rdma doesn't oops, and that
krb5p/{tcp,udp} are unchanged.)

I'll try it eventually if you don't....

--b.


2007-12-15 18:16:17

by Tom Tucker

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/38] svc: Add transport hdr size for defer/revisit




On 12/14/07 5:37 PM, "J. Bruce Fields" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:33:09PM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote:
>>
>> Some transports have a header in front of the RPC header. The current
>> defer/revisit processing considers only the iov_len and arg_len to
>> determine how much to back up when saving the original request
>> to revisit. Add a field to the rqstp structure to save the size
>> of the transport header so svc_defer can correctly compute
>> the start of a request.
>
> I know I asked before, and can't remember what happened: has this been
> tested with krb5p? (I know nobody cares much whether krb5p/rdma works,
> I just want to make sure krb5p/rdma doesn't oops, and that
> krb5p/{tcp,udp} are unchanged.)

I haven't tested this combination. I definitely don't have a kerberos setup,
but I guess I need to sooner or later...

>
> I'll try it eventually if you don't....
>
> --b.