From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22951 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752687Ab1IWQxy (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:53:54 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <20110923162438.13574.52985.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20110923162451.13574.33960.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Linus Torvalds Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, miklos@szeredi.hu, raven@themaw.net, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jlayton@redhat.com, gregkh@suse.de, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, leonardo.lists@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] NFS4: Revert commit to make the automount code ignore LOOKUP_FOLLOW Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:53:07 +0100 Message-ID: <14116.1316796787@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The problem with this is that this breaks nfs_follow_remote_path() used by > > NFS4 to find the root object to mount for the mount() syscall. > > The above message is basically dishonest. > > That's not AT ALL the problem. Dishonest? In what way am I lying about it? After I wrote that line I went on to explain how to reproduce it and what was happening. That was the problem addressed by that patch. I was including it as a means to fix the NFS regression and as I pointed out in the cover note, it can be actually be dropped if one of the further patches is introduced. > That problem could have been fixed with a one-liner patch that already exists. Which is fragile. > This whole patch-series looks like just excuses for doing stupid things. I believe you to be wrong. Anyway, if I'm going to be accused of dishonesty, I see no further reason to continuing in this discussion. Have a good weekend. David