From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Remaining rpcbind patches for 2.6.27 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:51:17 -0400 Message-ID: <1215463877.19512.40.camel@localhost> References: <20080630223646.24534.74654.stgit@ellison.1015granger.net> <20080703204543.GI30918@fieldses.org> <1215454820.19512.25.camel@localhost> <1215456693.19512.36.camel@localhost> <76bd70e30807071244v4db1c366uc7599d2dd806bf1b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: chucklever@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:17887 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753850AbYGGUvW (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:51:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <76bd70e30807071244v4db1c366uc7599d2dd806bf1b-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 15:44 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > If you would like connected UDP, I won't object to you implementing > it. However, I never tested whether a connected UDP socket will give > the desired semantics without extra code in the UDP transport (for > example, an ->sk_error callback). I don't think it's worth the hassle > if we have to add code to UDP that only this tiny use case would need. > OK. I'll set these patches aside until I have time to look into adding connected UDP support. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com www.netapp.com