From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>
Cc: Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>,
Linux NFS Mailing list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
jlayton@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Avoid reverse resolution for server name
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:22:59 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130409192259.GD3800@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51646838.3050209@RedHat.com>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:12:56PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
>
> On 09/04/13 14:54, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Argh, no, one away or another the default needs to be to not do the PTR
> > lookup.
> Fine...
>
> >
> > The transition Simo's using was Jeff's suggestion. Let's just stick to
> > that if we don't have a good reason.
> Yeah... I would like to avoid adding to flags... I don't think both are
> needed.
So, no flags.
> > (But I don't have strong opinions about how to do it either. I'd
> > actually be OK with being harsh and just switching to the new behavior
> > without any option.)
> My crutch is I'm not a big DNS guy so I'm not sure how much breakage
> would occur... So I would rather be on the safe side and give people
> a way to go back...
So, yes to flags. I'm confused!
I guess we can be moderately harsh: switch to the new default and
provide only a flag to restore the old default for whoever wants it, but
not a flag to specify the new default. Is that what you mean?
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-09 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-02 17:49 [PATCH 0/3] Avoid DNS Reverse lookups when possible Simo Sorce
2013-04-02 17:49 ` [PATCH 1/3] Fix segfault when using -R option Simo Sorce
2013-04-02 19:11 ` Steve Dickson
2013-04-02 17:49 ` [PATCH 2/3] Avoid reverse resolution for server name Simo Sorce
2013-04-02 17:58 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-04-02 18:08 ` Simo Sorce
2013-04-02 18:53 ` Jeff Layton
2013-04-02 18:21 ` Simo Sorce
2013-04-02 18:25 ` Steve Dickson
2013-04-02 18:44 ` Simo Sorce
2013-04-02 19:20 ` Steve Dickson
2013-04-02 19:32 ` [PATCH 0/2] Alternative patchset to avoid PTR lookups Simo Sorce
2013-04-02 19:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] Avoid reverse resolution for server name Simo Sorce
2013-04-08 13:39 ` Steve Dickson
2013-04-08 14:08 ` Simo Sorce
2013-04-09 17:15 ` Steve Dickson
2013-04-09 17:25 ` Simo Sorce
2013-04-09 17:35 ` Steve Dickson
2013-04-09 18:02 ` Simo Sorce
2013-04-09 18:54 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-04-09 19:12 ` Steve Dickson
2013-04-09 19:22 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2013-04-10 10:43 ` Jeff Layton
2013-04-10 14:53 ` Steve Dickson
2013-04-02 19:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] Document new -z/-Z options Simo Sorce
2013-04-03 14:20 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-04-03 14:35 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-04-03 14:56 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-04-03 15:10 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-04-03 15:27 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-04-02 17:49 ` [PATCH 3/3] Document new -N option Simo Sorce
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=20130409192259.GD3800@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=SteveD@redhat.com \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=simo@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).