From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Dickson Subject: A Question about the 2.4.21 Pathconf patch Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:08:30 -0400 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3EAE956E.9080205@RedHat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Return-path: Received: from host-64-179-20-100.man.choiceone.net ([64.179.20.100] helo=Odyssey.Home.4Dicksons.Org) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19AWip-0004Rh-00 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:08:43 -0700 Received: from RedHat.com (Suzy.Home.4Dicksons.Org [192.168.62.6]) by Odyssey.Home.4Dicksons.Org (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h3TF8V006579 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:08:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from SteveD@RedHat.com) To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I noticed in the Trond's linux-2.4.21-08-pathconf.dif patch that nfs_proc_fsinfo uses the NFSPROC_STATFS instead of (what I would expect) the NFSPROC_FSINFO procedure as defined in the v3 spec. Now I realize that fsinfo is not support in v2 but doesn't it make sense to use it with v3 or am I missing something here. I would think that if the server sent some numbers that the client couldn't handle, the client would simple fail the mount... Has anybody tried using NFSPROC_FSINFO instead of NFSPROC_STATFS? SteveD ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs