From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:42214 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752987Ab1FIR3G (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:29:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4DF102E0.5000201@candelatech.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:29:04 -0700 From: Ben Greear To: Steve Dickson CC: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nfs-utils: Support binding to source address. References: <1307574083-27608-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <4DF10053.9050901@RedHat.com> In-Reply-To: <4DF10053.9050901@RedHat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On 06/09/2011 10:18 AM, Steve Dickson wrote: > Hello, > > > On 06/08/2011 07:01 PM, greearb@candelatech.com wrote: >> From: Ben Greear >> >> This lets one specify the source IP address for >> sockets, allowing users to leverage routing rules >> on multi-homed systems. > Right out of the box I do think some support like > this would be good... but I not convinced on how needed > something like this is which means there is a lot of > change here for basically not... But lets continue > to talk about to see where we end up.... > > One thing you must do is break up this patch in to > a more readable patch series. There is no way I going > to commit a patch that is close to 1500 lines > that so invasive. The vast majority of the patch is adding an extra argument to various methods to get things to compile. Do you want me to break those changes into individual chunks, or should I just separate the parsing & documentation chunks out? I can dummy stuff out with passing NULL around to make lots of smaller patches, but I'm not sure it helps any readability. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com