From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:53215 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932309Ab0HaPOJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:14:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:13:42 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Jeff Layton Cc: Steve Dickson , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] rpc.nfsd: mount up nfsdfs is it doesn't appear to be mounted yet Message-ID: <20100831151342.GA3071@fieldses.org> References: <1282995314-8317-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <4C7BD394.3030705@RedHat.com> <20100830121600.529669bd@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <4C7BE1FC.2020400@RedHat.com> <20100830134801.1696dffa@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <4C7CF499.5090003@RedHat.com> <20100831084323.02a1abf5@corrin.poochiereds.net> <4C7D1694.6000708@RedHat.com> <20100831111008.157618f4@corrin.poochiereds.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20100831111008.157618f4@corrin.poochiereds.net> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:10:08AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > I was just pointing out that checking the return code from the system() > call isn't sufficient. Because of the way most people have modprobe set > up, it can return an error even though nfsdfs ended up being mounted > anyway. Checking for the presence of the file after attempting the > mount would be a more reliable test. > > Assuming we're in agreement there, we have another question to > settle...If the mount attempt fails, what should we do about it? > > With my original patch, we fall back to using nfsctl(). You're > suggesting that we should error out there. I'm not opposed to that, but > it does mean dropping support for some really old kernels. It also > means that we can remove some dead code in rpc.nfsd. > > OTOH, the fallback might allow nfsd to keep working for some people. > Maybe it would be better to just log a scary warning and fall back to > using nfsctl() for now. > > In a couple of releases, we could start returning an error there and > rip out the legacy interface code, or compile it out by default and > allow people to compile it in via a configure option? Yes, let's just add the additional mount attempt for now, and figure out what to do about the legacy interface as a next step. --b.