From: Enrico Weigelt Subject: Re: portmap -> map db entirely in filesystem Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 23:11:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20080526211108.GA22544@nibiru.local> References: <20080513195831.GA18915@nibiru.local> Reply-To: weigelt-EU+a56NjgY8@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from s15216962.onlinehome-server.info ([217.160.22.205]:35404 "EHLO s15216962.onlinehome-server.info" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755056AbYEZVL3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2008 17:11:29 -0400 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by s15216962.onlinehome-server.info (8.13.3/8.13.3) with UUCP id m4QLBRpv009260 for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 26 May 2008 23:11:27 +0200 Received: (from weigelt@localhost) by nibiru.metux.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) id m4QLB97d030804 for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 26 May 2008 23:11:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Chuck Lever wrote: Hi, > Well, first of all we are moving away from portmap these days since we > need to support IPv6. We currently have an rpcbind implementation > that is ported from Solaris. I had a look at it a few days ago ... far too fat for me. If you really need Ipv6 support on portmap, let's just do it. Shouldn't be such a big job. > But it would make sense to keep the rpcbind service completely in > the kernel. And move more bloat into the kernel ? Isn't it big enough yet ? Actually, I'm working on making the kernel smaller, moving several things into userspace. > That way the kernel RPC services could register with the rpcbind > database directly, and we wouldn't have to worry about reregistering > running RPC services because of a daemon restart. Wouldn't it be easier to just fix the portmapper ? > There's no need to involve permanent storage for rpcbind. There is even no need to have it running all the time, start on demand is enough for some workloads (eg. in embedded/smalldev environments) > Local user-space RPC services might then register via an ioctl() Oh no, please no more ioctl()'s. We should start getting rid of that old relics. > (or other special interface) instead of an actual RPC. And require an rewrite of each RPC service ? What a funny idea ;-o Making a originally IP-based service locally dependent sounds like a strange step back to me ... cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------