From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:60949 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758099Ab2CFC0J (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2012 21:26:09 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:26:09 -0700 Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DAA19D8048 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:25:02 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q262P7Nh116212 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:25:07 -0700 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q262P6T2000424 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:25:06 -0700 Received: from malahal (malahal.austin.ibm.com [9.53.40.203]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q262P6Xi000402 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:25:06 -0700 Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 20:25:05 -0600 From: Malahal Naineni To: Linux NFS Mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] umount.nfs: normalize path names during umounts. Message-ID: <20120306022505.GA32281@us.ibm.com> References: <1330976165-19849-1-git-send-email-steved@redhat.com> <1330976165-19849-2-git-send-email-steved@redhat.com> <20120305212015.GA21904@us.ibm.com> <4F5559EA.7010206@RedHat.com> <1330993903.5407.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4F556007.2030603@RedHat.com> <1330995896.5407.8.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4F5569C5.1000100@RedHat.com> <20120306015230.GA4513@umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20120306015230.GA4513@umich.edu> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jim Rees [rees@umich.edu] wrote: > I don't understand the backward compatibility issue. Are there times when > you have a mount, and it's in /etc/mtab, but not in /proc/mounts? I don't > see how that's possible. No, but that is what NFS umount thinks due to slight differences in those two files. Happens only in NFSv4 world.