Re: A Question about the 2.4.21 Pathconf patch

[Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>]

Hello Trond,

Trond Myklebust wrote:

>Why would we want to succeed in that case? If the server operates with
>some screwed up set of parameters that we are incapable of supporting,
>surely the best thing to do is to fail immediately?
>
Very true... I think we are saying the same thing.... Maybe I
was not too clear....

>Note: Most of the functionality of NFSPROC3_FSINFO *is* in fact in v2,
>but it is either part of NFSPROC_STATFS, or (shudder) has been tacked
>onto the mount protocol.
>
Right... but with the difference being that statfs supplies dynamic
information and fsinfo supplies static info. And some the
fsinfo info, like readdir sizes, procedures not supported,
max reads/writes sizes along with preferred read/write sizes
seems like good information to have about the server, although
not totally necessary, obviously ;-)

So I'm just curious, why (from a protocol purest standpoint) its
not being used... and if it ever was used, what were the results...

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