From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 3/14] knfsd: prepare reply per transport Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 00:01:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20070518040137.GD30144@fieldses.org> References: <20070517075342.GG27247@sgi.com> <7619F3097FAB384287CF636FF92D0CA10976B38B@exsvl01.hq.netapp.com> <20070518031630.GB5104@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List , "Iyer, Rahul" , "Talpey, Thomas" , Peter Leckie To: Greg Banks Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hotet-0008Eq-Vg for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 17 May 2007 21:01:40 -0700 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214] helo=fieldses.org) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1Hotew-0001pW-Ca for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 17 May 2007 21:01:42 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20070518031630.GB5104@sgi.com> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 01:16:30PM +1000, Greg Banks wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 02:16:46AM -0700, Iyer, Rahul wrote: > > I've written some code to do NFSv4.1 callbacks and wound up implementing > > another "transport". Since in v4.1 it's actually possible for clients to > > send requests (fore-channel) and receive callbacks (back channel) over > > the same connection, > > A very sensible thing to do, but hard to retrofit to the existing Linux > code without significant surgery. As you've discovered, the server and > client code are two mostly-separate code bases (with mostly-separate > authors and maintainers) that happen to link into the same module. > Unifying these would be a major job. I'd love to see it happen, for > example to unify the XDR buffering code, but it would be an uphill > battle technically and possibly politically also. For some reason, > code (like lockd) that lives in both the server and client side tends > to be neglected by both camps. > > > Given this, a unified transport switch would really rock. > > [...] Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but this seems doable. > > Yes...eventually. And the easiest approach may be to go ahead and introduce the completely separate server-side transport switch and then later find ways increase code sharing between the two in incremental steps.... --b. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs