From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sharing protocol defintions between client and server?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:35:24 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131114193524.GD21152@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131114164046.GA32275@infradead.org>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:40:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05:46AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:21:16AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > >From a lot of the recent work it seems like there's basically no
> > > sharing of protocol definitions between the Linux NFS client and
> > > server, which seems fairly annoying to me.
> >
> > What are you thinking of exactly?
> >
> > I suspect that there could be more sharing.
>
> To make it easy I'll just quote from the SEEK patches.
>
> client:
>
> +struct nfs42_seek_args {
> + struct nfs4_sequence_args seq_args;
> +
> + struct nfs_fh *sa_fh;
> + nfs4_stateid *sa_stateid;
> + u64 sa_offset;
> + u32 sa_what;
> +};
> +
> +struct nfs42_seek_res {
> + struct nfs4_sequence_res seq_res;
> + unsigned int status;
> +
> + u32 sr_eof;
> + u32 sr_whence;
> + u64 sr_offset;
> + u64 sr_length;
> + u32 sr_allocated;
> +};
> +#endif
>
> server:
>
> +struct nfsd4_seek {
> + /* request */
> + stateid_t seek_stateid;
> + loff_t seek_offset;
> + u32 seek_whence;
> +
> + /* response */
> + u64 seek_pos;
> + u32 seek_eof;
> + u64 seek_length;
> + u32 seek_allocated;
> +};
>
> note that a lot of server operations also seem to have separate
> args and result substrutures. In general I'd love to have one
> structure for the actual on-the wire operation in a header, and then
> client and server could build in-memory versions around them.
>
> Of course just generating those from the XDR would be even better.
Sometimes a lot of those fields are unused. And we can currently do
things like read/write directly from/to the data structures these are
eventually going to end up in.
So in theory the existing code might be more efficient.
In practice I don't know if it is. And it'd be nice to be able to
autogenerate huge swaths of boring code.
--b.
> Maybe I'll play around with doing a krpcgen that we can initially
> just use for producing the structures, for which it should be
> pretty clear benefit. If we're lucky we might be to also move
> some marshalling/unmarshalling over to it later.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-14 19:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-13 16:21 sharing protocol defintions between client and server? Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-14 15:05 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-11-14 16:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-14 19:35 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131114193524.GD21152@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.