From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, drzeus-list@drzeus.cx
Subject: Re: [NFS] What's slated for inclusion in 2.6.24-rc1 from the NFS client git tree...
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:59:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071004125916.dbe4fd13.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1191525363.6739.12.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:16:03 -0400
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:
> > >
> > > That would be perfect. It can even be in non-legacy mode by default,
> > > just as long as you can go back to the old behaviour when/if you run
> > > into a non-LFS application.
> > >
> >
> > Wouldn't a mount option be better?
>
> I suppose that might be OK if you know that the 32-bit legacy
> applications will only touch one or two servers, but that sounds like a
> niche thing.
>
> On the downside, forcing all those people who have portable 64-bit aware
> applications to upgrade their version of mount just in order to have
> stat64() work correctly seems unnecessarily complicated. I'd prefer not
> to have to do that unless someone comes up with a good reason why we
> must.
Confused. You don't need to modify mount(8) when adding a new mount option?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: drzeus-list@drzeus.cx, staubach@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org,
nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [NFS] What's slated for inclusion in 2.6.24-rc1 from the NFS client git tree...
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:59:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071004125916.dbe4fd13.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1191525363.6739.12.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:16:03 -0400
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:
> > >
> > > That would be perfect. It can even be in non-legacy mode by default,
> > > just as long as you can go back to the old behaviour when/if you run
> > > into a non-LFS application.
> > >
> >
> > Wouldn't a mount option be better?
>
> I suppose that might be OK if you know that the 32-bit legacy
> applications will only touch one or two servers, but that sounds like a
> niche thing.
>
> On the downside, forcing all those people who have portable 64-bit aware
> applications to upgrade their version of mount just in order to have
> stat64() work correctly seems unnecessarily complicated. I'd prefer not
> to have to do that unless someone comes up with a good reason why we
> must.
Confused. You don't need to modify mount(8) when adding a new mount option?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-04 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-03 23:41 What's slated for inclusion in 2.6.24-rc1 from the NFS client git tree Trond Myklebust
2007-10-03 23:41 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-10-03 23:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-10-04 6:52 ` Pierre Ossman
2007-10-04 6:52 ` Pierre Ossman
2007-10-04 14:00 ` [NFS] " Trond Myklebust
2007-10-04 14:00 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-10-04 16:43 ` Pierre Ossman
2007-10-04 18:42 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-04 18:42 ` [NFS] " Andrew Morton
2007-10-04 19:16 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-10-04 19:16 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-10-04 19:41 ` Peter Staubach
2007-10-04 19:41 ` [NFS] " Peter Staubach
2007-10-05 6:25 ` Pierre Ossman
2007-10-05 6:25 ` [NFS] " Pierre Ossman
2007-10-05 12:24 ` Jeff Layton
2007-10-05 17:36 ` [NFS] " Trond Myklebust
2007-10-05 17:54 ` Pierre Ossman
2007-10-05 17:54 ` [NFS] " Pierre Ossman
2007-10-04 19:59 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-10-04 19:59 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-05 0:58 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-10-05 0:58 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-10-05 17:30 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-10-05 17:30 ` [NFS] " Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-10-05 17:52 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-10-05 17:52 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-10-05 18:00 ` Jeff Layton
2007-10-05 18:00 ` [NFS] " Jeff Layton
2007-10-08 8:36 ` Greg Banks
2007-10-05 18:12 ` Jeff Layton
2007-10-05 18:12 ` Jeff Layton
2007-10-07 22:56 ` David Chinner
2007-10-04 20:16 ` Chuck Lever
2007-10-05 17:31 ` Trond Myklebust
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071004125916.dbe4fd13.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=drzeus-list@drzeus.cx \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nfs@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=nfsv4@linux-nfs.org \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.