From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [RFC] new client gssd upcall Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:09:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20080617220918.GE5849@fieldses.org> References: <1213397442-15611-1-git-send-email-bfields@citi.umich.edu> <20080616102859.66fa6a34@tleilax.poochiereds.net> <20080617213622.GA5849@fieldses.org> <1213739969.7288.90.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff Layton , aglo@citi.umich.edu, kwc@citi.umich.edu, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:49234 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757811AbYFQWJa (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:09:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1213739969.7288.90.camel@localhost> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 05:59:29PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 17:36 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:28:59AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > Has any thought been given to moving all of the rpc_pipefs upcalls to use > > > the keyctl API that David Howells did? It seems like that would be better > > > suited to this sort of application than rpc_pipefs... > > > > I haven't looked at it. I've just assumed that since Trond and Kevin > > have both looked at both API's, then there must be some good reason > > we're not using it.... > > Kevin has spent quite some time working on the keyring support, but as > far as I understand the amount of time he can continue to spend working > for CITI has recently been heavily reduced... Hm, but I thought that you'd both decided that the gssd upcalls would end up coexisting with the upcalls in any case? If there's a chance we might end up replacing the gssd upcalls entirely, then--while I don't want to stretch out this one task indefinitely--still it might be worth my time to go take a look at the keyctl API's Jeff mentions. --b.