From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: split the vs_hidden flag into TCP and UDP variants Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:37:42 -0400 Message-ID: <1277476662.6141.0.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <1277429621-9579-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <1277471650.2881.6.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20100625103503.011ae577@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Staubach_Peter@emc.com, bfields@fieldses.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from mail-out2.uio.no ([129.240.10.58]:49674 "EHLO mail-out2.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755951Ab0FYOhu (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:37:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100625103503.011ae577-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 10:35 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:14:10 -0400 > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 08:58 -0400, Staubach_Peter@emc.com wrote: > > > Does this mean that the Linux NFS server will no longer respond to NFSv4 > > > requests coming in over UDP? If it will continue to do so, wouldn't it > > > be more important to solve that correctly? > > > > Agreed. Either we keep UDP support on the server and advertise it too, > > or we should throw it out altogether... > > > > Ok, I'll start working on it. A question though... > > When we get a NFSv4 request over UDP, what's the correct response? > A PROG_MISMATCH RPC error? > Yes. A PROG_MISMATCH would be appropriate for that case. Cheers Trond