Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]:3740 "EHLO sj-iport-4.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755851Ab0DBRWV (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Apr 2010 13:22:21 -0400 From: Roland Dreier To: Chuck Lever Cc: Tom Tucker , "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux NFS Mailing List , "linux-rdma\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] nfsd: Make INET6 transport creation failure an informational message References: <4BB522CF.60503@opengridcomputing.com> <4BB61F19.2000403@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 10:22:17 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4BB61F19.2000403@oracle.com> (Chuck Lever's message of "Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:45:13 -0400") Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 > > The write_ports code will fail both the INET4 and INET6 transport > > creation if > > the transport returns an error when PF_INET6 is specified. Some transports > > that do not support INET6 return an error other than EAFNOSUPPORT. > > That's the real bug. Any reason the RDMA RPC transport can't return > EAFNOSUPPORT in this case? I think Tom's changelog is misleading. The problem is that the RDMA transport actually does support IPv6, but it doesn't support the IPV6ONLY option yet. So if NFS/RDMA binds to a port for IPv4, then the IPv6 bind fails because of the port collision. Implementing the IPV6ONLY option for RDMA binding is probably not feasible for 2.6.34, so the best band-aid for now seems to be Tom's patch. - R. -- Roland Dreier || For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html