On 12/18/2011 9:31 AM, Derrick Brashear wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Moved to openafs-devel
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Hartmut Reuter <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Derrick Brashear wrote:
>>>>
>>>> well, i can tell you the first problem: it reuses RPCs but changes
>>>> their signatures.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is exactly what it should do in order to make sure that any mixed
>>> configuration doesn't work. They will get back RXGEN_SS_UNMARSHAL errors
>>> and give up.
>>
>> Disagree. If you want to cause them to get an error, don't implement
>> the (different numbered) RPCs, and then RXGEN_OPCODE saves you.
> 
> (e.g. leave them out of the .xg... or, optionally leave them in and
> have dummy stubs which return RXGEN_OPCODE)

RXGEN_OPCODE is an indication that the RPC is intentionally not
supported and can be used to indicate failover to an alternate RPC.

RXGEN_SS_UNMARSHAL is an indication that the server and client mismatch
and the client should stop communicating with the server to prevent data
corruption.

There is consensus that updating ubik RPCs does not require afs3
standardization.  ubik is an internal protocol of OpenAFS.  We just need
consensus regarding the design on this list.

Jeffrey Altman

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to