From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] gssd: add support for callback authentication Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:18:57 -0400 Message-ID: <4A117C61.9000504@RedHat.com> References: <20090429214300.25811.81332.stgit@jazz.citi.umich.edu> <20090429215626.25811.13927.stgit@jazz.citi.umich.edu> <20090430212457.GA5700@fieldses.org> <4d569c330905061422t53d4a96as712678f2805c81ac@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Coffman Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:51812 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752072AbZERPV5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 11:21:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4d569c330905061422t53d4a96as712678f2805c81ac-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Since I'm just getting around to this now... just replace this patch please.... tia, steved Kevin Coffman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:24 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 05:56:26PM -0400, Kevin Coffman wrote: >>> From: Olga Kornievskaia >>> >>> Add support for handling upcalls on the new "nfsd4_cb" directory pipes. >>> Only new kernels (2.6.29) have support for this new pipe directory. >>> (The need for this new pipe directory will go away with NFSv4.1 where >>> the callback can be done on the same connection as the fore-channel.) >> My only complaint is that the code would be robust (and more >> future-proof) if instead of specifically looking for "nfs" and >> "nfsd4_cb", we just look at all top-level rpc_pipefs directories and >> handed directories under any of them in the same way. >> >> --b. > > In our offline discussion, Bruce convinced me that we should just > treat all the directories under the rpc_pipefs directory as equal, and > process any clnt directories that show up within them. (This > currently includes, "lockd mount nfs nfsd4_cb portmap statd".) > Any new directories appearing in the future will automatically get the > same treatment. > > Steve, I don't know what you might have already done with these > patches. Would you prefer a replacement for this patch, or patch on > top of this? > > K.C.