On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:43:07PM -0600, Spencer Shepler wrote: > On Nov 15, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Adam Leventhal wrote: > >>> Does 4.1 differ so much from 4 that the provider name itself must > >>> differ? > >> > >> That's funny. Yes. > > > > How funny is it? Will we want to support both the nfsv4 and nfsv41 > > providers? > > Will the probes overlap in a way that would create incompatibilities? > > Funny == flippant, in the sense that I would have expected Nico to > know some of > the details and was poking him a little on the issue (Hi, Nico).
Yes, _I_ got it :) > [...] > The larger issue is that there are a couple of arguments (OPEN mainly) > that have been extended through the NFSv4 minor version rules > to include additional parameters in effect. This means that > an NFSv4 and NFSv4.1 provider should not share the argument > definition. I don't see that as much of a problem either if > the providers were per minor version (e.g. NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1). Certainly there's no problem if we have separate providers for each version, but I did think (and you confirm) that a large subset of ops are common to both versions. If the implementation shares that commonality then it makes sense to at least try for one provider. Architecturally, if the differences between the two versions are sufficiently large then separate providers would be better. I'll be happy either way though :) Nico -- _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list [email protected]
