Re: [PATCH][nfs-utils] configuration: Fix a typo in configure.ac

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 08:48:41AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 08:25 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 07:57:28AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >> On 02/22/2010 01:22 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 03:45:10PM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >>>> From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Fix a typo in commit 6d5ac3fa (nfsd: Disble NFS 4.1 functionality by default).
> >>>
> >>> Better: please just rever 6d5ac3fa and apply
> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=126540028610022&w=2
> >> The problem I saw with the this patch was it would take 
> >> a code change to re-enable the 4.1 functional,
> > 
> > Enabling 4.1 will require no code changes to nfs-utils, only to the
> > kernel.  (But it will require a lot of code changes to nfs-utils, as we
> > should complete 4.1 support first.)
> > 
> >> verses a
> >> enabling a configuration flag. Plus, there has been a 
> >> precedence set of having these types of configuration flags,
> >> note the enable_nfsv3, enable_nfsv4, so adding a enable_nfsv41
> >> seem to me made sense...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 	- distributions shouldn't be turning on 4.1 by default yet.
> >> Its not... If the --enable_nfsv41 is not set, the 4.1 functional is
> >> off. Having this type of flag enables the distros to enable the
> >> functionality on development kernels but disable it on stable 
> > 
> > So you want to enable it (for example) in Fedora, but disable it in
> > RHEL?
> No, its only enabled in Rawhide which is the untested/developmental 
> version of the next fedora release (in this case F14). When F14 is ready,
> the determination will be made (with solicited input) if the 4.1 code
> should continue to be enabled or disabled.

That decision should depend on whether the kernel 4.1 support is
complete or not.  If it is, then the kernel will default 4.1 on, and
there will be no need for an nfs-utils change.

> This is why I like the configuration switch. There is no code
> changes, code is just being disabled. Which, in theory, should have
> no ramification at all..    
> 
> > 
> > I don't think that's a good idea.  If servers running current Fedora
> > kernels are still around when the client starts trying 4.1 first, then
> > we'll run into trouble.
> Since people actually have to specify the -o minorversion=1 mount
> option (which is not documented, btw), I'm going to assume those people
> know what they are doing and probably will know how to fix any problems 
> that may arise... 

No, that's not enough.  They may be accessing the server through other
clients.

We need users to make a conscious decision to turn on the server-side.
It's not enough to do it only on the client side.

--b.