Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:33785 "EHLO mail-pa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932241AbbAFR7u (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 12:59:50 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id fb1so31515371pad.13 for ; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:59:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:59:44 -0800 From: Tom Haynes To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] nfsd: implement pNFS layout recalls Message-ID: <20150106175943.GA14225@kitty.kitty> References: <1420561721-9150-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1420561721-9150-11-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150106172508.GE12067@fieldses.org> <20150106174214.GB16200@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20150106174214.GB16200@lst.de> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:42:14PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > This bothers me a little: cl_addr is just the address that the > > exchange_id came from. In theory there's no one-to-one relationship > > between NFSv4 clients and IP addresses. Is it likely the iscsi traffic > > could use a different interface than the MDS traffic? > > > > If this is the best we can do, then maybe this should at least be > > documented. > > The pNFS block fencing protocol bothers me a lot, it seems like very > little thought went into that part of the standard. > > I proposed a new SCSI layout type that fixes those issues on the > NFSv4 WG list, but there's been zero interest in it: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg13469.html > I don't know if I would say zero interest or normal apathy on the NFSv4 WG list to replying outside of the IETF meeting venue. I'd certainly like to see it go forward.