Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56870 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726463AbeGLT1l (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:27:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:16:45 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Olga Kornievskaia Cc: Olga Kornievskaia , linux-nfs Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/9] NFSD support for async COPY Message-ID: <20180712191645.GC10033@parsley.fieldses.org> References: <20180709192638.44799-1-kolga@netapp.com> <20180712185611.GB10033@parsley.fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 03:11:14PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:56 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > I think we got confused in the previous discussion of this. > > > > The reason I wanted the module parameter was that server-to-server copy > > would allow a rogue client to direct the server to copy from any server > > it wishes, and I thought this was potentially risky, and want people to > > opt into it rather than having it the default. > > > > That doesn't apply to asynchronous copy on its own. > > > > So this module parameter could wait for the next patchset. > > To clarify, you want "inter" copy offload to be configuration, but it > already was (when it was first posted) under config option. Now > instead of a compile option you prefer this to be a module parameter? That's right. I'd like distributions to be able to include server-to-server-copy capable kernels, but I don't want it on by default because I think responsible administrators will want to do some firewalling first. > Do you have any other comments? I'd rather not re-post another version > if you have more comments. In that case I'd recommend holding off till next week. --b.