From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] nfs-utils: query for remote port using rpcbind
	instead of getaddrinfo
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:11:51 -0400
Message-ID: <20090407131151.69203e5e@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
References: <1239117946-7535-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>
	<1239117946-7535-4-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>
	<41F98279-F000-4C1C-8E44-3568C89FC2BD@oracle.com>
	<49db7f0d.85c2f10a.5025.ffffb257@mx.google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org
To: Tom Talpey <tmtalpey@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49db7f0d.85c2f10a.5025.ffffb257@mx.google.com>
Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org
Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:27:49 -0400
Tom Talpey <tmtalpey@gmail.com> wrote:

> At 12:02 PM 4/7/2009, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >
> >On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >> +	/* Use standard NFS port for NFSv4 */
> >> +	if (program == 100003 && version == 4) {
> >> +		port = 2049;
> >> +		goto set_port;
> >> +	}
> >
> >I think this patch set looks pretty reasonable.  Here's my one  
> >remaining quibble.
> >
> >You can specify "port=" for nfs4 mounts, in which case we want to use  
> >that value here, too, I think.  It would be simpler overall if the  
> 
> *Must* use a port= specification. The 2049 definition is only true for
> NFSv4/TCP, as a counterexample the NFSv4/RDMA IANA binding is
> port 20049. So slamming the port to 2049 would break NFSv4/RDMA.
> 

rpc.gssd doesn't seem to be rdma-enabled at this point. It only seems
to handle "tcp" and "udp" in the existing code.

Does libtirpc handle RDMA properly? If so, this might not be too hard
to enable, but I'd probably rather see it in a follow on patchset (and
maybe by someone with more of a clue about RDMA than I currently have).

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>