From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: A Question about the 2.4.21 Pathconf patch Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:18:05 -0400 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3EAEEC0D.6040006@RedHat.com> References: <3EAE956E.9080205@RedHat.com> <3EAEC774.20402@RedHat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200] helo=lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19AcUO-0008DA-00 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:18:12 -0700 To: Trond Myklebust 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: Trond Myklebust wrote: > > 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... > >I'm not sure I understand the question. In which case do you think we >should be using FSINFO/STATFS (but are currently not doing so)? > In the linux-2.4.21-08-pathconf.dif patch, nfs_proc_fsinfo() does a rpc_call(NFSPROC_STATFS) call and then fill in the nfs_fsinfo structure with constants and values returned in the nfs2_statfs structure. I'm just wondering why nfs_proc_fsinfo() doesn't do a rpc_call(NFSPROC_FSINFO) which would fill the nfs_fsinfo structure with the values from the server. Of course these values would have to be check for sanity... I just seems to me that would be good information to to have on hand... 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