From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 31 18:30:56 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FCC3710 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:30:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EAA25C2 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:30:55 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq8EAB2K2lODaFve/2dsb2JhbABbhDuCdLBal1CHWoEjd4QtgQsCDRkCX4hVokmPKJdlF4EsjWyDNIFRBbA3g2UhgXQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,773,1400040000"; d="scan'208";a="144646161" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2014 14:30:54 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA24B402B for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:30:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: freebsd-current Current Message-ID: <1021165841.5947380.1406831454174.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> Subject: MFC of NFSv4.1 server code? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.201] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.6_GA_2926 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.6_GA_2926) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:30:56 -0000 Hi, There has been little comment w.r.t. the NFSv4.1 server code I dropped into head a month ago. It changes the internal interfaces between the NFS related kernel modules, but I do not believe that these would be considered KPIs. I`d like to MFC it to stable10 for 10.1. Does anyone have a strong opinion on this. Thanks in advance for any comments, rick