Re: NFSD: Unable to initialize client recovery tracking! (-110)

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>]

On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 13:16 +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 21.05.24 12:01, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-05-21 at 11:55 +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > > Am 19.04.24 um 18:50 schrieb Paul Menzel:
> > > 
> > > > Since at least Linux 6.8-rc6, Linux logs the warning below:
> > > > 
> > > >      NFSD: Unable to initialize client recovery tracking! (-
> > > > 110)
> > > > 
> > > > I haven’t had time to bisect yet, so if you have an idea,
> > > > that’d be great.
> > > 
> > > 74fd48739d0488e39ae18b0168720f449a06690c is the first bad commit
> > > commit 74fd48739d0488e39ae18b0168720f449a06690c
> > > Author: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > > Date:   Fri Oct 13 09:03:53 2023 -0400
> > > 
> > >      nfsd: new Kconfig option for legacy client tracking
> > > 
> > >      We've had a number of attempts at different NFSv4 client
> > > tracking
> > >      methods over the years, but now nfsdcld has emerged as the
> > > clear winner
> > >      since the others (recoverydir and the usermodehelper upcall)
> > > are
> > >      problematic.
> > [...]
> > It sounds like you need to enable nfsdcld in your environment. The
> > old
> > recovery tracking methods are deprecated. The only surviving one
> > requires the nfsdcld daemon to be running when recovery tracking is
> > started. Alternately, you can enable this option in your kernels if
> > you
> > want to keep using the deprecated methods in the interim.
> 
> Hmm. Then why didn't this new config option default to "Y" for a
> while
> (say a year or two) before changing the default to off? That would
> have
> prevented people like Paul from running into the problem when running
> "olddefconfig". I think that is what Linus would have wanted in a
> case
> like this, but might be totally wrong there (I CCed him, in case he
> wants to share his opinion, but maybe he does not care much).
> 
> But I guess that's too late now, unless we want to meddle with config
> option names. But I guess that might not be worth it after half a
> year
> for something that only causes a warning (aiui).
> 
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker'
> hat)
> --
> Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
> If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
> 

We simply changed the default in the Kconfig. That does not constitute
a regression, IMO. Why on earth would we continue to default enable an
option that we intend to deprecate in the near future?
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>