From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: NFS4 mount problem
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:36:25 +0100
Message-ID: <31100.1113820585@redhat.com>
References: <20050417135521.GA6876@infradead.org>  <20050415222122.61b4a9e9.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <OFE9485E19.AFD74A0A-ON88256FE4.0066AF48-88256FE4.006D0CA7@us.ibm.com> <20050415132259.24c3d570.davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Bryan Henderson <hbryan@us.ibm.com>, sfr@canb.auug.org.au,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org,
	steved@redhat.com
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:9150 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262023AbVDRKgz (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:36:55 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20050417135521.GA6876@infradead.org> 
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> I don't think we should encourage filesystem writers to do such stupid
> things as ncfps/smbfs do.  In fact I'm totally unhappy thay nfs4 went
> down that road.

The problem with NFS4, I think, is that the mount syscall sets a hard limit on
the amount of mount data that's insufficiently large.

David