Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
On Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:24:16 pm Rick Macklem wrote: > Kostik wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:43:28PM +0100, 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 > > > :-). > > > > I remember the main reason for keeping oldnfs, both server and > > client, > > around in HEAD was to facilitate MFC of fixes to the branches which > > still use oldnfs, i.e. stable/8. If this reason is still valid, > > oldnfs > > have to stay in HEAD till stable/8 is supported or interested for > > developers. > > > > I usually do not like direct commits into the stable branches. > > Otherwise, I see no reason to keep oldnfs around. > > > Well, the only commits I've done to "old" were bugfixes that applied > to both old and new. > > John has been the main "fix the old NFS" guy lately. So, John, do you > anticipate more patches to the old NFS that need to be MFC'd down? I do not, no. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
Kostik wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:43:28PM +0100, 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 > > :-). > > I remember the main reason for keeping oldnfs, both server and > client, > around in HEAD was to facilitate MFC of fixes to the branches which > still use oldnfs, i.e. stable/8. If this reason is still valid, > oldnfs > have to stay in HEAD till stable/8 is supported or interested for > developers. > > I usually do not like direct commits into the stable branches. > Otherwise, I see no reason to keep oldnfs around. > Well, the only commits I've done to "old" were bugfixes that applied to both old and new. John has been the main "fix the old NFS" guy lately. So, John, do you anticipate more patches to the old NFS that need to be MFC'd down? Thanks, rick ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
On 10/25/14, 5:49 AM, 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. We (work) have a lot of changes to the old nfs server in 8 We will have to port them all to the new server I guess as we go forward.. Rick, maybe I can run the diff past you privately for comment. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
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 - pe...@wemm.org; pe...@freebsd.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; > KI6FJV > UTF-8: for when a ' or ... just won\342\200\231t do\342\200\246 ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
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. -- Peter Wemm - pe...@wemm.org; pe...@freebsd.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV UTF-8: for when a ' or ... just won\342\200\231t do\342\200\246 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:42:20PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > On 24 October 2014 12:17, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > I remember the main reason for keeping oldnfs, both server and client, > > around in HEAD was to facilitate MFC of fixes to the branches which > > still use oldnfs, i.e. stable/8. If this reason is still valid, oldnfs > > have to stay in HEAD till stable/8 is supported or interested for > > developers. > > > > I usually do not like direct commits into the stable branches. > > Otherwise, I see no reason to keep oldnfs around. > > I only see real value in that if we're actually building and testing > it on HEAD on a regular basis though. If we don't build it by default > on HEAD and don't generally test it there, I think we're actually > worse off to commit changes to HEAD first and then MFC. We do build both (old) nfsclient and nfsserver, at least as modules. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
On 24 October 2014 12:17, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > I remember the main reason for keeping oldnfs, both server and client, > around in HEAD was to facilitate MFC of fixes to the branches which > still use oldnfs, i.e. stable/8. If this reason is still valid, oldnfs > have to stay in HEAD till stable/8 is supported or interested for > developers. > > I usually do not like direct commits into the stable branches. > Otherwise, I see no reason to keep oldnfs around. I only see real value in that if we're actually building and testing it on HEAD on a regular basis though. If we don't build it by default on HEAD and don't generally test it there, I think we're actually worse off to commit changes to HEAD first and then MFC. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:43:28PM +0100, 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 > :-). I remember the main reason for keeping oldnfs, both server and client, around in HEAD was to facilitate MFC of fixes to the branches which still use oldnfs, i.e. stable/8. If this reason is still valid, oldnfs have to stay in HEAD till stable/8 is supported or interested for developers. I usually do not like direct commits into the stable branches. Otherwise, I see no reason to keep oldnfs around. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
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 :-). Robert ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, October 23, 2014 2:57:26 pm 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 it is fine to remove it from 11. I would do it sooner rather > than > later. > I just got an off-list email from someone reporting that they have problems w.r.t. a hang in the new server that they don't get in the old one. I have encouraged them to repost to the list, so that we can hopefully help this individual out. Thanks for the comments, rick > -- > John Baldwin > ___ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 2:57:26 pm 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 it is fine to remove it from 11. I would do it sooner rather than later. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
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. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
