From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from relay.parallels.com ([195.214.232.42]:55376 "EHLO relay.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752556Ab2KVTDt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:03:49 -0500 Message-ID: <50ADDCB4.2050603@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:05:08 +0400 From: Stanislav Kinsbursky MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: Jeff Layton , , , , Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/15] NFSd state containerization References: <20121114152018.4708.63125.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20121114220036.GD539@fieldses.org> <20121115133408.23db9ebb@corrin.poochiereds.net> <20121121204408.GA23097@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20121121204408.GA23097@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 22.11.2012 00:44, J. Bruce Fields пишет: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:34:08PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:00:36 -0500 >> "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 06:20:59PM +0300, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote: >>>> This patch set is my first attempt to containerize NFSv4 state - i.e. make it >>>> works in networks namespace context. >>>> I admit, that some of this new code could be partially rewritten during future >>>> NFSd containerization. >>>> But the overall idea look more or less correct to me. >>>> So, the main things here are: >>>> 1) making nfs4_client network namespace aware. >>>> 2) Allocating all hashes (except file_hashtbl and reclaim_str_hashtbl) per >>>> network namespace context on NFSd start (not init) and destroying on NFSd >>>> state shutdown. >>>> 3) Allocating of reclaim_str_hashtbl on legacy tracker start and destroying on >>>> legacy tracker stop. >>>> 4) Moving of client_lru and close_lru lists to per-net data. >>>> 5) Making lundromat network namespace aware. >>> >>> These look OK and pass my tests. Jeff, do the revised recovery bits >>> look OK? >>> >>> Have you done any testing? >>> >>> It'd be interesting, for example, to know if there are any pynfs that >>> fail against the server in a non-init network namespace, but pass >>> normally. >>> >>> --b. >>> >> >> I looked over the patches and they look sane to me. I move that they go >> into your -next branch to soak for a bit. > > Stanislav, actually, I'm unclear, since you labeled these "RFC": do you > consider these patches ready? > Yes, I consider them ready. I added the "RFC" mark, because I'm not completely sure, this this code wont' be partially rewritten in future. > --b. > -- Best regards, Stanislav Kinsbursky