From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 15 20:56:24 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB47106564A for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:56:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from skerryvore.cs.uoguelph.ca (skerryvore.cs.uoguelph.ca [131.104.94.204]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243468FC1B for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:56:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca (muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.102]) by skerryvore.cs.uoguelph.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2FKuMuS004055; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:56:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (rmacklem@localhost) by muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id n2FL1eX02315; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:01:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca: rmacklem owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:01:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem X-X-Sender: rmacklem@muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca To: Tim Kientzle In-Reply-To: <49BD6378.9030501@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <49BD6378.9030501@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 131.104.94.204 Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS version 4.0 for FreeBSD-CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:56:24 -0000 On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Q: Does this support NFSv4 ACLs? As I recall, > trasz@ has NFSv4 patches in P4 that have yet to > be merged; I've been waiting on that to work on > NFSv4 support for tar/cpio. > It works fine with it. Most of the work w.r.t. ACLs is in the local file systems on the server. (It just required a little bit of tweaking of my code, which was done a few months ago.) > Q: How does this relate to the new NFS lockd > recently committed? (by Doug Rabson? I can't > remember now.) > They will share the same RPC code, once I have completed the conversion. I basically just copied the client side lock code over into nfsclient, but have never tested it. As far as the server goes, I'd have to look. NFSv4 locking doesn't use lockd, but my server does grab byte range locks through the VFS and I suspect lockd sees those, just like any other process sees them. (One advantage of NFSv4 is integrated locking that seems to work well.) [good stuff w.r.t. integration snipped for brevity] rick