From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: recent failover-by-IP changes Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 17:57:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20080502215711.GN21918@fieldses.org> References: <1B257A25-2B59-448F-B11C-637B8688D883@oracle.com> <20080502212608.GI21918@fieldses.org> <20080502214022.GM21918@fieldses.org> <48B372AB-5874-4F62-9912-8C1290B3648A@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Wendy Cheng , Linux NFS Mailing List To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:56885 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758226AbYEBV5O (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 17:57:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48B372AB-5874-4F62-9912-8C1290B3648A@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 05:56:09PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > On May 2, 2008, at 5:40 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 05:35:47PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On May 2, 2008, at 5:26 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:58:58PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>>>> Hi Wendy- >>>>> >>>>> Looking at your recent lockd-failover-by-IP changes... I'd like to >>>>> make >>>>> sure I understand this logic before I merge it into my NLM IPv6 >>>>> patch >>>>> set. >>>>> >>>>> In fs/lockd/svcsubs.c: >>>>>> static int >>>>>> nlmsvc_match_ip(void *datap, struct nlm_host *host) >>>>>> { >>>>>> __be32 *server_addr = datap; >>>>>> >>>>>> return host->h_saddr.sin_addr.s_addr == *server_addr; >>>>> >>>>> h_saddr is the local host's source address, not the server address, >>>>> and >>>>> is used only on multi-interface systems. Is that what you wanted >>>>> to >>>>> compare, or did you mean ->h_addr? >>>> >>>> This is server-side code--h_saddr, last I checked, isn't even filled >>>> in >>>> on the client side. So the current host *is* the server. >>> >>> So this API is requesting that the local host should drop locks? >> >> It's requesting that the server-side lockd drop any locks that it's >> holding on behalf of any clients that accessed the server through the >> given ip address. >> >>> Okay, >>> that makes sense. It's not well documented in the code, though. >> >> Could be; suggestions welcomed. > > I'll add a patch to my IPv6 series, and we can look at it when we go > over 2.6.27 merge candidates. OK, thanks.--b.