Re: [patch] fix statd -n

[Wendy Cheng <wcheng@netapp.com>]

Janne Karhunen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:02 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>
>   
>>  > >  Right, that's what would make the most sense to me.  Janne, is there any
>>  > >  reason that wouldn't solve your problem?
>>  >
>>  > I didn't get the idea. So the idea is to use multiple sockets,
>>  > one bound to LOOPBACK and one to external interface?
>>
>>  I suppose so.  One socket would be for communication for the local
>>  kernel nfsd, one for communication with statd peers.
>>     
>
> Finally got around to it again. Attached patch takes a
> shot at the two socket approach. Patch is a draft to
> see what you guys would really think about this
> approach.
>
>   
Do we really have to add so many lines of the code just to fix "statd 
-n" ? Maybe we should go back to the basics by understanding the 
requirement of this command ? So why do we need it (i.e. what kind of 
bad things we'll see if we don't fix this) ? Some short description 
would help. 

-- Wendy