From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:42840 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752007Ab0H2WM5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:12:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:12:47 +1000 From: Neil Brown To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com, steved@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] rpc.nfsd: mount up nfsdfs is it doesn't appear to be mounted yet Message-ID: <20100830081247.6d8eaaa3@notabene> In-Reply-To: <20100829193717.GB1627@fieldses.org> References: <1282995314-8317-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20100829083853.4e95d2ee@notabene> <20100828222450.7ca62e49@corrin.poochiereds.net> <20100829193717.GB1627@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:37:17 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" 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 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