Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
From:   "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de>
To:     "Chuck Lever III" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc:     "Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>,
        "Linux NFS Mailing List" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFSD: drop support for ancient file-handles
In-reply-to: <BDD839B0-7837-4421-940B-6DB9EC31043E@oracle.com>
References: <162995209561.7591.4202079352301963089@noble.neil.brown.name>,
 <BDD839B0-7837-4421-940B-6DB9EC31043E@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 07:38:10 +1000
Message-id: <163001389048.7591.12518735969639627593@noble.neil.brown.name>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> 
> > On Aug 26, 2021, at 12:28 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > File-handles not in the "new" or "version 1" format have not been handed
> > out for new mounts since Linux 2.4 which was released 20 years ago.
> > I think it is safe to say that no such file handles are still in use,
> > and that we can drop support for them.
> > 
> > This patch also moves the nfsfh.h from the include/uapi directory into
> > fs/nfsd.  I can find no evidence of it being used anywhere outside the
> > kernel.  Certainly nfs-utils and wireshark do not use it.
> > 
> > fh_base and fh_pad are occasionally used to refer to the whole
> > filehandle.  These are replaced with "fh_raw" which is hopefully more
> > meaningful.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> > ---
> > 
> > I found
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-nfs/msg43280.html
> > "Re: [PATCH] nfsd: clean up fh_auth usage"
> > from 2014 where moving nfsfh.h out of uapi was considered but not
> > actioned. Christoph said he would "do some research if the
> > uapi <linux/nfsd/*.h> headers are used anywhere at all".  I can find no
> > report on the result of that research.  My own research turned up
> > nothing.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > NeilBrown
> 
> Hi Neil-
> 
> I have no philosophical objection to this clean up, but I'm
> concerned a bit about timing. It's a large patch, and 5.15
> should be opening on Sunday. I would prefer this to go into
> 5.16, if that's OK with you?

No problem at all.  I enjoy the luxury of send patches whenever I'm
ready, and assume you will process them only when you are ready.  I do,
of course, appreciate knowing what you plan.

Thanks,
NeilBrown