Subject: more on Minor Interop

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:10:14 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

> Which server is "my server"? Is it the Python server, the normal v4 Linux 
> kernel server, or something else?

Something else. It's basically vanilla 4.4NFS re-written with V4 support
added. (The re-write got rid of a lot of stuff, like most of the macros
NQNFS. It also lacks some of the changes done by the various BSD groups
more recently.)

> Yes. This change was done a long time ago. You shouldn't read 3010, IMHO. 
> Take a look at 
> http://www.nfsv4.org/rfc3010updates/draft-01-03/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-01-03.txt 
> instead.

Yep, I grabbed that one recently. The lookup code was probably written last
summer, but I noticed the difference when testing against the Univ. of Michigan
Linux code (sorry about the un-bug report, Univ. of Michigan folks). Since
the code I had to add to do a pathname instead of a single component added
quite a bit of complexity, I didn't want to roll it back out if the decision
was still on the fence. (It sounds like it's going to stay a component, so
I can simplify the routine.)

> The idea is that because we have the COMPOUND feature, you can just as 
> well include several LOOKUPs in on call. 

Yep, sounds fine to me. (As noted above, I was just trying to decide if the
pathname code could come out.)

> I don't know about this one, but to me it looks wrong: It feels wrong that
> the client should require RAWDEV. It should probably only require RAWDEV
> attr for files of type NF4CHR or NF4BLK. Or maybe not even then.

That was my feeling, although my server is currently generous and returns
numbers whenever asked, which is fine with me.

> Yes. Both servers and clients should work without delegation/callbacks. If 
> the client hangs, I believe it's a client bug. 

Ok, I'll leave that one until I have a better understanding of what is
supposed to happen w.r.t. Delegation.

Thanks for the help, rick