From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wouter Batelaan Subject: Re: mismatch between 2.6.19 and nfs-utils-1.0.10 nfsctl_arg structure??? Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:46:06 +0000 Message-ID: <45DC693E.2010805@nxp.com> References: <45DB3871.5070604@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" Return-path: Received: from gw-eur4.philips.com ([161.85.125.10]:24771 "EHLO gw-eur4.philips.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161293AbXBUPq6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:46:58 -0500 Received: from smtpscan-eur6.philips.com (smtpscan-eur6.mail.philips.com [130.144.57.169]) by gw-eur4.philips.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08BDF49710 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:46:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.philips.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DD1F1AF0EE for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:46:54 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <45DB3871.5070604@nxp.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org wrote on 2007-02-21 00:04:40: > You will need patch f988443a84528bd30c2f474efa5e2c511959f19b [1] > or run > mount -t nfsd nfsd /proc/fs/nfs/nfsd > before starting mountd. I applied the patch, and attempted the mount cmd above. I assume you mistyped the directory path, because /proc/fs/nfs/nfsd does not exist, so I used /proc/fs/nfsd Unfortunately it has not made any difference. > The differences are not significant. Really? Surely if userspace uses this order > > struct nfsctl_uidmap u_umap; > > struct nfsctl_fhparm u_getfh; > > struct nfsctl_fdparm u_getfd; > > struct nfsctl_fsparm u_getfs; but kernelspace expects this > > struct nfsctl_fdparm u_getfd; > > struct nfsctl_fsparm u_getfs; then we have significant differences? But if you're sure, then what else can be wrong? My /etc/exports file contains (adding all 'unsafe' options I can find): /p (rw,sync,no_root_squash,no_subtree_check,crossmnt,insecure,nohide,insecure_locks,no_acl) I tried with and without (empty) hosts.allow and hosts.deny files. I'm running out of ideas :-( Wouter Batelaan