From: Wendy Cheng Subject: Re: [patch] fix statd -n Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:45:03 -0400 Message-ID: <4817346F.5000101@netapp.com> References: <24c1515f0804170938s23fe3ea3pfe77355ed01d8bbf@mail.gmail.com> <20080418173646.GC19038@fieldses.org> <480902CA.1070805@redhat.com> <48090356.9020703@redhat.com> <20080418203225.GD28277@fieldses.org> <24c1515f0804181346g5867fa1fqfbbcd13af25027cb@mail.gmail.com> <20080421000214.GA5453@fieldses.org> <24c1515f0804281352u2d04ac89i820dc6807dde39f1@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Peter Staubach , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Janne Karhunen Return-path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:14028 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751978AbYD2OnJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:43:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <24c1515f0804281352u2d04ac89i820dc6807dde39f1-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Janne Karhunen wrote: > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:02 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > >> > > Right, that's what would make the most sense to me. Janne, is there any >> > > reason that wouldn't solve your problem? >> > >> > I didn't get the idea. So the idea is to use multiple sockets, >> > one bound to LOOPBACK and one to external interface? >> >> I suppose so. One socket would be for communication for the local >> kernel nfsd, one for communication with statd peers. >> > > Finally got around to it again. Attached patch takes a > shot at the two socket approach. Patch is a draft to > see what you guys would really think about this > approach. > > Do we really have to add so many lines of the code just to fix "statd -n" ? Maybe we should go back to the basics by understanding the requirement of this command ? So why do we need it (i.e. what kind of bad things we'll see if we don't fix this) ? Some short description would help. -- Wendy