On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Jeffrey Altman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I'd still rather see dummy stubs that return that, then, explicitly, rather than RPC number reuse. > 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. No argument. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
