From: Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>
To: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: "Adamson, Dros" <Weston.Adamson@netapp.com>,
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
"<linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: add mount options 'v4.0' and 'v4.1'
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:05:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F31760B.10801@RedHat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1328640482.4124.29.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
On 02/07/2012 01:48 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 13:41 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> That said, I see the 'vers=4' being reserved for auto-negotiation of
>> minor version, and the 'vers=4.x' as requiring a specific minor version
>> number.
>> The way auto-negotiation is supposed to work is laid out in
>> RFC3530(-bis): the client attempts the largest minor version that it
>> supports, and the server replies with an OK, or a MINOR_VERSION_MISMATCH
>> depending on whether it supports that minor version or not. If not, the
>> client retries with the next largest minor version, .... rince, repeat
>> until successful...
>
> BTW: There is no reason why we should need to do this auto-negotiation
> in kernel space. As we've learned with major version negotiation, it can
> be more flexible to just teach the 'mount' command to do the actual
> probing, since that allows the user better control over the process via
> global configuration files...
>
+1
Its also much easier to debug and fix bugs... People are much more willing
to take a mount command update than a kernel update...
steved.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-07 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-07 16:49 [PATCH] NFS: add mount options 'v4.0' and 'v4.1' Weston Andros Adamson
2012-02-07 16:59 ` Chuck Lever
2012-02-07 18:21 ` Boaz Harrosh
2012-02-07 18:30 ` Adamson, Dros
2012-02-07 18:41 ` Myklebust, Trond
2012-02-07 18:48 ` Myklebust, Trond
2012-02-07 19:05 ` Steve Dickson [this message]
2012-02-07 18:37 ` Chuck Lever
2012-02-07 18:41 ` Boaz Harrosh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F31760B.10801@RedHat.com \
--to=steved@redhat.com \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=Weston.Adamson@netapp.com \
--cc=bharrosh@panasas.com \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).