Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:16:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs Message-ID: <1491116875.7157717.1414188966210.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <5206562.372QOO418I@overcee.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm wrote: > On Friday, October 24, 2014 04:43:28 PM Robert Watson wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > Someone just pinged me on this and I figured I should bring it > > > up. > > > > > > 1 - Is anyone out there still using oldnfs due to unresolved > > > > > > problems with the new one? (I am not aware of any outstanding > > > issues in the new nfs that don't exist in the oldnfs.) > > > > > > 2 - Does anyone see a problem with getting rid of oldnfs for > > > > > > FreebSD-11? > > > > > > 3 - If I get rid of it in -head, I can do it either in > > > mid-December > > > > > > or mid-April. (I can't do commits during the winter.) > > > Does anyone have a rough idea when the 11.0 release cycle will > > > start, so I can choose which of the above would be preferable? > > > (I figured I'd wait until after the last 10.n release that > > > happens > > > > > > before 11.0, since it will be easier to MFC before the > > > removal of > > > oldnfs.) > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any comments, rick > > > ps: John, I've cc'd you since I thought you are the guy most > > > likely to > > > > > > need to do commits/MFCs to oldnfs. > > > > I think removing it is fine, but as early as possible (as John > > says) to give > > our -CURRENT users time to stop working around bugs and start > > reporting > > them > > :-). > > We still use oldnfs at work, even on 11.x, but I'm very much in favor > of > getting back to one single copy. It seems like there's too many > things that > are fixed in one stack or the other., We need to stop splitting > effort. > > I've asked Rick before to remove it and get back to just "nfs" rather > than > "newnfs" etc. > I'll admit I don't understand what the naming issue is? The only place the name "newnfs" shows up is for the name of the vnodes, when a lock on a vnode is held and you do "ps axHl" or similar and the name of the client side iod threads. That can be changed when the old one is removed, but it seems a pretty minor item to me. When you mount with the new one, you "mount -t nfs ...", The module names are nfsd.ko, nfscl,ko (vs nfsserver.ko, nfsclient.ko for the old one. The naming of functions/globals within the code is under a variety of prefixes (I suppose you could argue that is poor coding style) and that was done to avoid any "multiply defines" when compiled/linked beside the old code. Is it just the name of the vnode for the client that you don't like being called "newnfs" or the name of the iod threads in the client or ??? that you feel needs changing from "newnfs" to "nfs"? rick > -- > Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; > KI6FJV > UTF-8: for when a ' or ... just won\342\200\231t do\342\200\246
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1491116875.7157717.1414188966210.JavaMail.root>