Re: [patch] fix statd -n

[Wendy Cheng <s.wendy.cheng@gmail.com>]

J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 08:24:25PM -0400, Janne Karhunen wrote:
>   
>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Wendy Cheng <s.wendy.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>  Maybe I mislead you in previous post. The "-H" is only an "example" - to
>>> show people how to selectively move an ip address around without affecting
>>> other co-existing nfs ip interface on the same server. I did plan to submit
>>> a complete user mode patch so the program after "-H" will have a default
>>> executable (but user still can use their own if they don't like our nlm
>>> directory structure).
>>>       
>> Even if you ship the default executable user would
>> still need to go and edit it (add the address). Well,
>> I guess it would not be that much harder than
>> specifying the -n, but somehow this does seem
>> more arcane (for simple setups).
>>     
>
> In any case, if there's still a legimate use case for -n, even if it's
> not great, we should err on the side of fixing it just to save problems
> for anyone with an existing working setup.
>
> If -n has never worked at all for anyone, then OK, let's get rid of it.
>
> --b.
>   
Simpler code and consolidated logic flow are always better - would like 
to vote for its deletion.

I had a very bad experience with a filesystem (*cough*) that accepted 
few mis-understood boundary condition fixes that ended up disturbing the 
core logic. It still couldn't recover from it and the code churning 
keeps going on until today.

-- Wendy