From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Jongman Heo <jongman.heo@samsung.com>
Cc: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Regression caused by commit 4bdc33ed ("NFSDv4.2: Add NFS v4.2 support to the NFS server")
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:12:46 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130927011246.GA10245@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26120922.5161380239877162.JavaMail.weblogic@epml04>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:57:57PM +0000, Jongman Heo wrote:
> >------- Original Message -------
> >Sender : J. Bruce Fields<bfields@fieldses.org>
> >This is pretty weird--it's not at all obvious how that patch would
> >affect this.
> >
> >You're absolutely positive that the *only* thing you're changing on the
> >server between the "good" and "bad" cases is that one kernel patch?
> >You're not changing anything in userspace?
> >
>
> Yes, pretty sure.
>
> >What does "cat /proc/fs/nfsd/versions" report in the good and bad cases?
> >
> >(BTW, out of curiosity: what kind of client is this that only supports
> >NFSv2 and NFSv3? Even for an embedded system that's a bit surprising.)
> >
> >--b.
> >
>
> Here are /proc/fs/nfsd/versions information for good and bad cases ;
>
> good (commit 4bdc33ed reverted)
>
> # cat /proc/fs/nfsd/versions
> +2 +3 +4 +4.1
>
>
> bad (current linus git)
>
> # cat /proc/fs/nfsd/versions
> -2 +3 +4 +4.1 -4.2
>
>
> I don't know why the commit 4bdc33ed makes this difference ( from +2 to -2 ).
>
> My NFS server just uses Fedora 19 + latest kernel (which is not a rare setup...),
The thing is, nfs-utils *did* make exactly this change with commit
6b4e4965a6b82e8d49cea1c0316b951ba4e9e83e "rpc.nfsd: No longer advertise
NFS v2 support." in 1.2.9-rc4 which entered f19 recently. And that
kernel commit doesn't look related. So I strongly suspect that you got
the nfs-utils update (or rebooted after the update) at the same time as
bisecting, and that confused the bisect results.
> so I think some people can verify if this version information change happens w/ and w/o the commit revert.
>
> Don't know the detail of NFS protocol, but our NFS client seems not to try with v3 and v4 in case v2 fails...
> Is this an unexpected (buggy) behavior of my old embedded box (NFS client of kernel 2.6.35), or expected one from the NFS protocol?
Digging into a historical git repo just for fun.... It looks like NFSv3
support was added in 2.3.99pre4-3, probably in 2000? (The date on that
commit is 2007, so obviously this repo I have is very confused. Maybe I
should go find if there's a better one someplace.)
So anyway it's either configured out of the kernel or the mount
commandline's asking for v2, or I don't know what....
--b.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-27 1:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-26 23:57 Re: Re: Regression caused by commit 4bdc33ed ("NFSDv4.2: Add NFS v4.2 support to the NFS server") Jongman Heo
2013-09-27 1:12 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
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=20130927011246.GA10245@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jongman.heo@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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