2008-07-14 19:56:32

by [email protected]

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Remaining rpcbind patches for 2.6.27

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 03:11:29PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:40 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:27:47PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jul 7, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 15:44 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If you would like connected UDP, I won't object to you implementing
> >>>> it. However, I never tested whether a connected UDP socket will give
> >>>> the desired semantics without extra code in the UDP transport (for
> >>>> example, an ->sk_error callback). I don't think it's worth the
> >>>> hassle
> >>>> if we have to add code to UDP that only this tiny use case would
> >>>> need.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> OK. I'll set these patches aside until I have time to look into adding
> >>> connected UDP support.
> >>
> >> That's not completely necessary... the one-shot + TCP changes just make
> >> it nicer when the local rpcbind is not listening. Without these, the
> >> cases where the rpcbind daemon isn't running, or doesn't support rpcbind
> >> v3/v4 and the kernel was built with CONFIG_SUNRPC_REGISTER_V4, will cause
> >> some delays before failing, but otherwise shouldn't be a problem.
> >>
> >> I think you can drop the patch to change rpcb registration to go over
> >> TCP for now unless you already have a CUDP implementation you are happy
> >> with.
> >
> > So actually in your original series of 7 I think that'd mean dropping
> > numbers 5 and 6 and keeping the rest?
>
> So, 5/7 adds "one shot" support to the RPC client. I think that might
> be interesting for other kernel services, like making rpcbind queries
> over TCP, or NFSv4 callback. I'd like to advocate for keeping that
> one so others can build on it (with whatever name for the create flag
> we can agree on), but it's not really necessary for subsequent
> patches.
>
> 6/7 changes the rpcb_register logic to use "one shot" + TCP -- that's
> the one that is controversial and can be dropped.

May as well at least apply the other 5? Trond is carrying other
net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c patches, so they probably need to go in his tree.

I guess I'll go ahead and send along versions based on latest
trond/devel.

--b.