Return-Path: Received: from smtp.opengridcomputing.com ([209.198.142.2]:55255 "EHLO smtp.opengridcomputing.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752333Ab0DBSwl (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:52:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4BB63CF7.7020905@opengridcomputing.com> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:52:39 -0500 From: Tom Tucker To: Roland Dreier CC: Chuck Lever , "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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Roland Dreier wrote: > > > 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. Yes, it should read "A transport may fail for some reason other than EAFNOSUPPORT." > 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. > > Should we fail INET4 if INET6 fails under any circumstances? > 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. >