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

[Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>]

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.
 
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... 

steved.