Re: [PATCH 3/3] NFSD: Enable NFS server use of PF_INET6

J. Bruce Fields
2010-01-22T18:05:27Z

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:10:59PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 5:52 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 06:09:17PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2010, at 5:35 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 04:10:48PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>>> Try to use an PF_INET6 listener for NFSD if IPv6 is enabled in the
>>>>> kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>> fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c b/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c
>>>>> index 2604c3e..7ebb7a5 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c
>>>>> @@ -981,6 +981,26 @@ static ssize_t __write_ports_delfd(char *buf)
>>>>> return len;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static ssize_t __write_ports_create_xprt(struct svc_serv *serv,
>>>>> + const char *transport,
>>>>> + const int family,
>>>>> + const unsigned short port)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int err;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + err = svc_create_xprt(serv, transport, family, port,
>>>>> + SVC_SOCK_ANONYMOUS);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (err < 0) {
>>>>> + /* Give a reasonable perror msg for bad transport string */
>>>>> + if (err == -ENOENT)
>>>>> + err = -EPROTONOSUPPORT;
>>>>
>>>> I realize you're just moving this code, not writing it, so this is a
>>>> separate question, but: it looks like it's svc_create_xprt() itself
>>>> that
>>>> chooses ENOENT for this case. Is there any reason it shouldn't just
>>>> use
>>>> EPROTONOSUPPORT from the start?
>>>
>>> I guess this little transformation is for the benefit of rpc.nfsd? I
>>> don't know of a reason offhand why you couldn't change
>>> svc_create_xprt(). I don't immediately see any of svc_create_xprt's
>>> callers that might depend on getting ENOENT, but I didn't look very
>>> hard.
>>
>> Could I talk you into writing a patch that does that, as long as
>> you're
>> touching this code?
>
> Since we have a little time before 2.6.34, I'll look into it.

Thanks, Chuck.

--b.