Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:54:36 +0300 From: Andrey Simonenko <simon@comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mountd, rpc.lockd and rpc.statd patches for testing Message-ID: <20120419125436.GA82169@pm513-1.comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <857698325.1023052.1306788962581.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 04:56:02PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote: > Hi, > > I have patches for the mountd, rpc.statd and rpc.lockd daemons > that are meant to keep them from failing when a dynamically > selected port# is not available for some combination of > udp,tcp X ipv4,ipv6 > > If anyone would like to test these patches, they can be found > at: > http://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem/mountd.patch > statd.patch > lockd.patch > > Although I think I got them correct, they are rather big and ugly. > I have checked this update for mountd in 10-CURRENT and has two questions: 1. What is the sense to try to use the same port number for all supported netconfigs if specific port number is not given in a command line option? 2. What is the sense of specifying specific IP addresses for mountd and similar RPC programs that do not have predefined port numbers? ---------- One comment for netconfig related functions usage. Each setnetconfig() call allocates memory and depending on implementation can use other resources, so endnetconfig() should be called before reusing netconfig handle.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120419125436.GA82169>