User Details
- User Since
- Jan 13 2015, 10:58 PM (514 w, 5 d)
Tue, Nov 5
Apr 16 2024
Apr 14 2024
Apr 11 2024
Apr 9 2024
markj@ has a better patch in D44614.
Apr 8 2024
Apr 7 2024
Apr 3 2024
I made a couple of comments, but feel free to ignore
them, since I think the patch is fine without the changes.
Apr 1 2024
Mar 31 2024
Mar 30 2024
Mar 29 2024
Mar 27 2024
Mar 26 2024
Made the changes suggested by emaste@.
Mar 25 2024
Mar 20 2024
This version looks fine to me. I'll let you decide whether or
not to leave the TCP check in.
Mar 18 2024
Mar 17 2024
This version has Mike Karel's suggested change.
Mar 16 2024
Mar 15 2024
Mar 12 2024
va_holey may be the way to go for FreeBSD15, so long as
it is easy to calculate. Having a file system do something
akin to Seek_Hole in VOP_GETATTR() would defeat the purpose.
Updated the comment as suggested by kib@.
Mar 11 2024
Mar 7 2024
Yes, that sounds fine to me.
Feb 27 2024
Hmm. Sounds like it should only be enabled if TLS is
not enabled?
For the TLS case, the receive code in clnt_vc.c does
upcalls to userland for non-application data records
and these are handled by the OpenSSL library using
a SSL_read() call.
Feb 22 2024
One more "bigger picture" comment.
If setting TCP_USE_DDP is something
that the NFS client will always want to
try and do, then I would scrap the client
side changes in this patch and put the
so_setsockopt() right in clnt_vc_create().
One more comment. If this socket option must/should be
set right away (before any data travels on the TCP
connection), it should be left in clnt_reconnect_coonect(),
but should be moved to before the rpctls_connect() call block.
(Right after clnt_vc_create() at line#202.)
Feb 21 2024
Oh, and to make it work on the client side, the
CLSET_TCP_DDP needs to be set in newnfs_connect().
(In the nmp != NULL section.)
As noted in the second inline comment, the socket
opt would normally be set in clnt_vc.c and clnt_rc.c
would just do a CLSET on the client to do that.
Jan 20 2024
Looks ok to me.
Jan 12 2024
Jan 11 2024
Jan 6 2024
I ran a test cycle mounting the client laptop locally
(which is all I can do at this time) and with another
experimental patch removed and...
-> I see no performance degradation and do not
go anywhere need the runningbuf limit (it never exceeded 1Mbyte, from what I saw).
Jan 4 2024
Although I have not found any correctness issue with this patch,
I am seeing a little performance degradation.
For example, a kernel build over NFS takes about 5% longer
on the setup/hardware I have.
Yes, I think a FreeBSD NFS server exporting msdosfs
file systems will change file handles when a rename
occurs.
Jan 3 2024
Jan 2 2024
Dec 31 2023
Looks ok to me, although I have limited knowledge w.r.t.
the buffer cache.
Added kib@'s lines to the calculation as an extra
safety belt (and to avoid any overflow to a negative
value).
This looks ok to me and testing with the patch has not
found any regression.
This looks fine to me. I did a little testing and did not
find any regression.
Dec 29 2023
Changed the description for EINVAL for flags not 0,
as suggested by karels@, except I used "argument"
instead of "parameter", since .FA is defined as function argument.
Oh, now I see you are talking about the Title here.
I don't know how to change that and it won't affect
the commit.
(I only copy the Summary into the commit and then edit
it from there.)