From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] sunrpc: Create sockets in namespaces Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:05:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20101001220546.GG1472@fieldses.org> References: <4CA32AB4.2090808@parallels.com> <20100929214527.GC26180@fieldses.org> <0678928F-3DE0-4AB9-8CD9-7BDA3A362A20@oracle.com> <4CA42437.3090102@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pavel Emelyanov , Trond Myklebust , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:56712 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752886Ab0JAWGF (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:06:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:16:03AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2010, at 1:46 AM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > > >>> Shall I commit this to my for-2.6.37 tree? Objections? > >> > >> I think it looks OK. > >> > >> But I was wondering if there were any other changes needed for the RDMA > >> transport capability, or had we decided that would happen at a latter point, > >> or that changes are entirely unneeded > > > > We definitely need more changes in the RDMA transport, but I would like to > > have it done later (unless someone other than me starts doing it earlier ;) ). > > OK, thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense to keep the scope of this socket patch set narrow, but I don't want the RDMA pieces to get lost. The more we let the RDMA and socket transport capabilities differ, the harder it will be to support RDMA in the long run. > > Anyway, Bruce, I have no objection to the latest version of this socket patch set, fwiw. Applied and pushed out, thanks Pavel and Chuck.... --b.