From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32195 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750720Ab0HaS7w (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:59:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4C7D5117.6050407@RedHat.com> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:59:35 -0400 From: Steve Dickson To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] rpc.nfsd: mount up nfsdfs is it doesn't appear to be mounted yet References: <4C7CF499.5090003@RedHat.com> <20100831084323.02a1abf5@corrin.poochiereds.net> <4C7D1694.6000708@RedHat.com> <20100831111008.157618f4@corrin.poochiereds.net> <20100831151342.GA3071@fieldses.org> <4C7D1D3B.1030607@RedHat.com> <20100831155128.GB3071@fieldses.org> <4C7D2A20.1040806@RedHat.com> <20100831161547.GD3071@fieldses.org> <4C7D3976.8070209@RedHat.com> <20100831180745.GA11361@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20100831180745.GA11361@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On 08/31/2010 02:07 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:18:46PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: >> I really don't think we need to rip the guts out of >> mountd and exportfs just to remove this one nfsctl() in rpc.nfsd. > > I agree. > >>> Dropping backwards compatibility may be a reasonable thing to do, but >>> it's something that we should be very clear about, and that we should >>> put in a patch that does that and nothing else. >> So you are talking about doing a complete rewrite of mountd and exportfs >> just to take out that one call from rpc.nfsd... I just don't see the >> justification... If we are going to do that, let just think about rewriting >> all the tools to make the more v4 friendly... something we talked about >> at the last bakeathon... > > All I'm asking is that any patch which disables support for older > kernels (by ceasing to do the nfsctl) be a *separate* patch that clearly > states which kernels we're dropping support for. Fine. The taking out the nfsclt() and/or the adding of the error check on the mount (basically causing nfsclt() to never be called) will be in a separate clearly documented patch..... > > Once we decide to drop such support (if we do), that might allow us to > rip out a lot of additional code. That can be done later. I agree... steved.