From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Tom Tucker <tom@opengridcomputing.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] nfsd: Make INET6 transport creation failure an informational message
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 10:22:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adaljd57os6.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BB61F19.2000403@oracle.com> (Chuck Lever's message of "Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:45:13 -0400")
> > The write_ports code will fail both the INET4 and INET6 transport
> > creation if
> > the transport returns an error when PF_INET6 is specified. Some transports
> > that do not support INET6 return an error other than EAFNOSUPPORT.
>
> That's the real bug. Any reason the RDMA RPC transport can't return
> EAFNOSUPPORT in this case?
I think Tom's changelog is misleading. The problem is that the RDMA
transport actually does support IPv6, but it doesn't support the
IPV6ONLY option yet. So if NFS/RDMA binds to a port for IPv4, then the
IPv6 bind fails because of the port collision.
Implementing the IPV6ONLY option for RDMA binding is probably not
feasible for 2.6.34, so the best band-aid for now seems to be Tom's
patch.
- R.
--
Roland Dreier <rolandd@cisco.com> || For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Tom Tucker
<tom-7bPotxP6k4+P2YhJcF5u+vpXobYPEAuW@public.gmane.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields"
<bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List
<linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] nfsd: Make INET6 transport creation failure an informational message
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 10:22:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adaljd57os6.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BB61F19.2000403-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> (Chuck Lever's message of "Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:45:13 -0400")
> > The write_ports code will fail both the INET4 and INET6 transport
> > creation if
> > the transport returns an error when PF_INET6 is specified. Some transports
> > that do not support INET6 return an error other than EAFNOSUPPORT.
>
> That's the real bug. Any reason the RDMA RPC transport can't return
> EAFNOSUPPORT in this case?
I think Tom's changelog is misleading. The problem is that the RDMA
transport actually does support IPv6, but it doesn't support the
IPV6ONLY option yet. So if NFS/RDMA binds to a port for IPv4, then the
IPv6 bind fails because of the port collision.
Implementing the IPV6ONLY option for RDMA binding is probably not
feasible for 2.6.34, so the best band-aid for now seems to be Tom's
patch.
- R.
--
Roland Dreier <rolandd-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> || For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-02 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-01 22:48 [PATCH,RFC] nfsd: Make INET6 transport creation failure an informational message Tom Tucker
2010-04-01 22:48 ` Tom Tucker
2010-04-02 16:45 ` Chuck Lever
2010-04-02 16:45 ` Chuck Lever
2010-04-02 17:22 ` Roland Dreier [this message]
2010-04-02 17:22 ` Roland Dreier
2010-04-02 18:03 ` Chuck Lever
2010-04-02 18:03 ` Chuck Lever
2010-04-02 19:04 ` Tom Tucker
2010-04-02 19:04 ` Tom Tucker
2010-04-02 18:52 ` Tom Tucker
2010-04-02 18:52 ` Tom Tucker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-04-01 19:12 Tom Tucker
[not found] ` <4BB4F038.50906-7bPotxP6k4+P2YhJcF5u+vpXobYPEAuW@public.gmane.org>
2010-04-01 19:14 ` Steve Wise
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=adaljd57os6.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com \
--to=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tom@opengridcomputing.com \
/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.