From: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com>
To: Jim Rees <rees@umich.edu>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] NFS: Modularize NFS v3
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:56:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ED7DBF9.7050404@netapp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111201173642.GB11436@umich.edu>
On Thu Dec 1 12:36:42 2011, Jim Rees wrote:
> bjschuma@netapp.com wrote:
>
> From: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com>
>
> This set of patches removes NFS v3 from the main NFS kernel module and creates
> a new module containing the proc, xdr, and acl code. This will give us a
> single directory to put NFS v3 specific code so it doesn't need to be mixed in
> with the generic client stuff.
>
> Thanks! Is v4 next? This will come in handy when we implement v5.
I wonder if there would be a sane way of creating modules for minor
versions of v4 rather than waiting for v5?
>
> But seriously... If we take this to its logical conclusion, won't we need a
> subdirectory for nfs4? And if we do that, will block and object layout be
> subdirectories of nfs, or of v4?
Yeah, there would be a v4 subdirectory. I would expect that they would
be moved to subdirectories of v4, since they shouldn't be needed for
generic NFS, v2 or v3.
>
> And while we're at it, should file layout move to a subdir like block and
> object?
That would make sense to me. It would be more consistent with what the
other layout modules are doing.
>
> And what about v2? There's only nfs2xdr.c, so a subdir seems like overkill.
v2 also has proc.c, it's just not named "nfs2proc.c". Right now,
turning on CONFIG_NFS_FS will always turn on v2, so unless this is
changed it won't need a separate subdirectory. Another thought: would
there be any benefit to splitting nfs*proc.c and/or nfs*xdr.c into
multiple files?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-01 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-01 16:48 [RFC 0/4] NFS: Modularize NFS v3 bjschuma
2011-12-01 16:48 ` [RFC v2 1/4] NFS: Export symbols needed by an NFS v3 module bjschuma
2011-12-01 16:48 ` [RFC v2 2/4] NFS: Move the NFS v3 code into its own subdirectory bjschuma
2011-12-01 16:48 ` [RFC v2 3/4] NFS: Add functions for adding new NFS versions bjschuma
2011-12-01 16:48 ` [RFC v2 4/4] NFS: Turn NFS v3 into a module bjschuma
2011-12-01 17:36 ` [RFC 0/4] NFS: Modularize NFS v3 Jim Rees
2011-12-01 19:56 ` Bryan Schumaker [this message]
2011-12-01 21:05 ` Steve Dickson
2011-12-01 21:55 ` Bryan Schumaker
2011-12-01 21:57 ` Trond Myklebust
2011-12-02 2:38 ` Steve Dickson
2011-12-02 2:01 ` Steve Dickson
2011-12-02 16:24 ` J. Bruce Fields
2012-01-10 17:42 ` Stanislav Kinsbursky
2012-01-10 17:58 ` Bryan Schumaker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-11-22 22:57 bjschuma
2011-11-23 2:19 ` Boaz Harrosh
2011-11-23 2:41 ` Jim Rees
2011-11-28 14:14 ` Bryan Schumaker
2011-11-23 18:27 ` J. Bruce Fields
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=4ED7DBF9.7050404@netapp.com \
--to=bjschuma@netapp.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rees@umich.edu \
/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.