From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Haynes Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] nfsd: implement pNFS layout recalls Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:59:44 -0800 Message-ID: <20150106175943.GA14225@kitty.kitty> References: <1420561721-9150-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1420561721-9150-11-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150106172508.GE12067@fieldses.org> <20150106174214.GB16200@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Jeff Layton , linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, xfs-VZNHf3L845pBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150106174214.GB16200-jcswGhMUV9g@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:42:14PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > This bothers me a little: cl_addr is just the address that the > > exchange_id came from. In theory there's no one-to-one relationship > > between NFSv4 clients and IP addresses. Is it likely the iscsi traffic > > could use a different interface than the MDS traffic? > > > > If this is the best we can do, then maybe this should at least be > > documented. > > The pNFS block fencing protocol bothers me a lot, it seems like very > little thought went into that part of the standard. > > I proposed a new SCSI layout type that fixes those issues on the > NFSv4 WG list, but there's been zero interest in it: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg13469.html > I don't know if I would say zero interest or normal apathy on the NFSv4 WG list to replying outside of the IETF meeting venue. I'd certainly like to see it go forward. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html