From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:03:34 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] net: NFS: Add NFSv3 support In-Reply-To: <576CE522.4060404@free.fr> References: <1466450845-9165-1-git-send-email-guillaume.gardet@free.fr> <1466673026-11735-1-git-send-email-guillaume.gardet@free.fr> <20160623190826.GY19080@bill-the-cat> <576CE522.4060404@free.fr> Message-ID: <20160624150334.GD19080@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 09:45:38AM +0200, Guillaume Gardet wrote: > > > Le 23/06/2016 21:08, Tom Rini a ?crit : > >On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:10:26AM +0200, Guillaume GARDET wrote: > > > >>This patch enables NFSv3 support. > >>If NFSv2 is available use it as usual. > >>If NFSv2 is not available, but NFSv3 is available, use NFSv3. > >>If NFSv2 and NFSv3 are not available, print an error message since NFSv4 is not supported. > >> > >>Tested on iMX6 sabrelite with 4 Linux NFS servers: > >> * NFSv2 + NFSv3 + NFSv4 server: use NFSv2 protocol > >> * NFSv2 + NFSv3 server: use NFSv3 protocol > >> * NFSv3 + NFSv4 server: use NFSv3 protocol > >> * NFSv3 server: use NFSv3 protocol > >So, why do we have v2+v3+v4 -> v2 and not v2+v3+v4 -> v3, when we do > >v2+v3 -> v3 and v3+v4 -> v3 ? We should be consistent in preferring > >either v2 over v3 or v3 over v2. Thanks! > > > > Sorry, it is a typo error. Please read: "NFSv2 + NFSv3 server: use NFSv2 protocol". > > As long as NFSv2 is available, we use it. Otherwise, we use v3 if > available. As explained above. OK, that makes sense, thanks! Joe, I assume you can just fix that in the commit message when you pick this up. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: