From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Tucker Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] nfsd: Make INET6 transport creation failure an informational message Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:52:39 -0500 Message-ID: <4BB63CF7.7020905@opengridcomputing.com> References: <4BB522CF.60503@opengridcomputing.com> <4BB61F19.2000403@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Roland Dreier Cc: Chuck Lever , "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux NFS Mailing List , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.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