From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guillaume Gardet Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:45:38 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] net: NFS: Add NFSv3 support In-Reply-To: <20160623190826.GY19080@bill-the-cat> References: <1466450845-9165-1-git-send-email-guillaume.gardet@free.fr> <1466673026-11735-1-git-send-email-guillaume.gardet@free.fr> <20160623190826.GY19080@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <576CE522.4060404@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Le 23/06/2016 21:08, Tom Rini a ?crit : > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:10:26AM +0200, Guillaume GARDET wrote: > >> This patch enables NFSv3 support. >> If NFSv2 is available use it as usual. >> If NFSv2 is not available, but NFSv3 is available, use NFSv3. >> If NFSv2 and NFSv3 are not available, print an error message since NFSv4 is not supported. >> >> Tested on iMX6 sabrelite with 4 Linux NFS servers: >> * NFSv2 + NFSv3 + NFSv4 server: use NFSv2 protocol >> * NFSv2 + NFSv3 server: use NFSv3 protocol >> * NFSv3 + NFSv4 server: use NFSv3 protocol >> * NFSv3 server: use NFSv3 protocol > So, why do we have v2+v3+v4 -> v2 and not v2+v3+v4 -> v3, when we do > v2+v3 -> v3 and v3+v4 -> v3 ? We should be consistent in preferring > either v2 over v3 or v3 over v2. Thanks! > Sorry, it is a typo error. Please read: "NFSv2 + NFSv3 server: use NFSv2 protocol". As long as NFSv2 is available, we use it. Otherwise, we use v3 if available. As explained above. Guillaume