Re: [PATCH,RFC] nfsd: Make INET6 transport creation failure an informational message

[Tom Tucker <tom-7bPotxP6k4+P2YhJcF5u+vpXobYPEAuW@public.gmane.org>]

Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > > The write_ports code will fail both the INET4 and INET6 transport
>  > > creation if
>  > > the transport returns an error when PF_INET6 is specified. Some transports
>  > > that do not support INET6 return an error other than EAFNOSUPPORT.
>  > 
>  > That's the real bug.  Any reason the RDMA RPC transport can't return
>  > EAFNOSUPPORT in this case?
>
> I think Tom's changelog is misleading.
Yes, it should read "A transport may fail for some reason other than 
EAFNOSUPPORT."

>   The problem is that the RDMA
> transport actually does support IPv6, but it doesn't support the
> IPV6ONLY option yet.  So if NFS/RDMA binds to a port for IPv4, then the
> IPv6 bind fails because of the port collision.
>
>   

Should we fail INET4 if INET6 fails under any circumstances?

> Implementing the IPV6ONLY option for RDMA binding is probably not
> feasible for 2.6.34, so the best band-aid for now seems to be Tom's
> patch.
>
>  - R.
>   

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html