From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030519AbVJGR1D (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:27:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030529AbVJGR1D (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:27:03 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:27579 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030519AbVJGR1B (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:27:01 -0400 Message-ID: <4346AFD4.3000009@RedHat.com> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:26:44 -0400 From: Steve Dickson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041020 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [NFS] [PATCH] kNFSD - Allowing rpc.nfsd to setting of the port, transport and version the server will use References: <43469FA7.7020908@RedHat.com> <20051007164435.GC9759@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20051007164435.GC9759@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hey Bruce, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > So the obvious question is what will happen if someone does > > rpc.nfsd -N 3 > > on a server supporting 2, 3, and 4. > > It looks like the code in svc_create() will set pg_lovers to 2 and > pg_hivers to 4 in that case. So if someone tries to use version 3, the > error they get back will be a somewhat contradictory "sorry, I only > support versions 2 through 4." hmmm.... good point... But I wonder if this would be better handled in rpc.nfsd process; Similar to what happens when no transports are specified (i.e. both -T and -U flags are set), the server fails to started. steved.