Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753092AbXHaTgA (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:36:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751099AbXHaTfu (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:35:50 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.190]:14228 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750924AbXHaTft (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:35:49 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; b=jjD3wHxjQxc448xDT7PfM8vUN1yYRgspdeVZ+95m2Wea9mILJ8DYDf/idziHgDq5eQfBfBqFP/nqsHYuwYkgbuED+vS3vBSNL01bDlC3XMWhosBCqSNi8VkIkoVUkmFiBSp4nHRmiQ5BmNJBw9JqE/IQ+ECqEJiwAJfDwb4UxMk= From: "Hua Zhong" To: "'Trond Myklebust'" Cc: "'Linus Torvalds'" , "'Frank van Maarseveen'" , "'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" , References: <000701c7eb49$cff701c0$6fe50540$@com> <1188513433.6626.24.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1188577275.6649.133.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <006a01c7ebff$709354c0$51b9fe40$@com> <1188587601.19730.45.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> In-Reply-To: <1188587601.19730.45.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Subject: RE: recent nfs change causes autofs regression Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:35:37 -0700 Message-ID: <006b01c7ec06$1c8d9c30$55a8d490$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcfsAwZpqgwnfKeOSGi52XTjHDLJnwAAoPPw Content-Language: en-us Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1223 Lines: 30 > On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 11:47 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote: > > This patch fixes the problem for me, thanks. > > > > Is this patch changing the behavior of "sharecache" to > > "try-to-share-cache-if-possible", or adding a third behavior? If the > > user explicitly asks for "-o sharecache", does he get an error back > > if the mount options mismatch? > > There has never been a 'sharecache' flag as far as the kernel is > concerned. The default behaviour has always been to share. It's not about default (for which backward compatibility is most important and this patch is perfectly fine), but user explicitly asks for "sharecache". In this case if for any reason the cache cannot be shared, I am not sure if he should get an error back. I for one agree with Ian and Linus that changing default to nosharecache might be the best thing to do, but since I am now able to use the latest kernel, I am very happy already. Thanks a lot for your attention to my problem. :-) > Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/