Re: [PATCH] rpc.nfsd: mount up nfsdfs is it doesn't appear to be mounted yet

[Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:37:17 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:24:50PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:38:53 +1000
> > Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> > > I don't think it is all that bad.  It is a shame you have to use system()
> > > rather than just calling mount() directly but I guess we need that to
> > > update /etc/mtab.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yeah, that's the main reason I went with system(). It's worthwhile to
> > note that I'm using the exact same command that's in modprobe.conf on
> > fedora/RHEL.
> > 
> > > Suggestions:
> > > 
> > >  - just don't do that.  Use /etc/init.d/nfsserver start (or whatever the
> > >    distro uses).
> > 
> > I don't think we should count on that. Most people will use that, but
> > it seems like we shouldn't require that for this to work as expected...
> > 
> > >  - Make /proc/fs/nfsd and auto-mount point.  That sounds like the systemd
> > >    approach.
> > 
> > Yes, I think systemd will take care of this eventually, but I think we
> > need something for existing distros that aren't using it yet.
> 
> I thought Neil was saying that this would be a "systemd-like" approach,
> not that it would actually require systemd.  Am I missing something?

That is what I was saying, but making autofs or am-utils a pre-requisite for
nfsd doesn't sound like a good idea.  I would "like" it to work like this,
but I don't think it is really practical.

> 
> I can't come up with an immediate objection.  I'm also not opposed to
> your patch as it stands.

I agree, the 'no-op NFSD request' is very dependent on specific user-space
setup so we don't want to burn that into rpc.nfsd.

I support that patch as it stands.

NeilBrown