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 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).