Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:20911 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754154Ab2ACRIZ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:08:25 -0500 Message-ID: <1325610502.16751.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Clean up the RPCSEC_GSS service ticket requests From: Trond Myklebust To: Bruce Fields Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:08:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120103165544.GC6309@fieldses.org> References: <1325608907-17801-1-git-send-email-Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> <20120103165544.GC6309@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 11:55 -0500, Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 11:41:47AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > Instead of hacking specific service names into gss_encode_v1_msg, we should > > just allow the caller to specify the service name explicitly. > > Just curious: do you have some callers in mind he will need different > service names? Not for now, but I do expect that we might want to add lockd to the list of RPCSEC_GSS-enabled services some day. > (But I agree reagardless that this is the more logical layering; fwiw: > > Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields Thanks! -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com www.netapp.com