Re: [PATCH nfs-utils v2 05/12] getport: recognize "vsock" netid

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1721 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 03 2017, Matt Benjamin wrote:

> Hi Neil,
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:45 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 03 2017, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>
> Since the vsock address family is in the tin since 4.8, this argument
> appears to be about, precisely, tying existing pieces together.

No, it is about adding new, unnecessary pieces into various places.

>                                                                  The
> ceph developers working on openstack manila did find the nfs over
> vsock use case compelling.  I appreciate this because it has
> encouraged more interest in the cephfs community around using the
> standardized NFS protocol for deployment.

I'm sure the ceph developers find zero-conf NFS a compelling use case.
I would be surprised if they care whether it is over vsock or IPv6.

But I'm losing interest here.  I'm not a gate-keeper.  If you can
convince Steve/Trond/Anna/Brice to accept your code, then good luck to
you.  I don't think a convincing case has been made though.

NeilBrown


>
> Matt
>
>>
>> I think we all agree that providing something that "just works" is a
>> worth goal.  In only question is about how much new code can be
>> justified, and where it should be put.
>>
>> Given that almost everything you need already exists, it seems best to
>> just tie those pieces together.
>>
>> NeilBrown
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The changes required to Linux and nfs-utils are related to the sunrpc
>>> transport and configuration.  They do not introduce risks to core NFS or
>>> TCP/IP.  I would really like to get patches merged because I currently
>>> have to direct interested users to building Linux and nfs-utils from
>>> source to try this out.
>>>
>>> Stefan

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]