Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760932AbXJDUAt (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:00:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757830AbXJDUAY (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:00:24 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:58608 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756658AbXJDUAV (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:00:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:59:16 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Trond Myklebust Cc: drzeus-list@drzeus.cx, staubach@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [NFS] What's slated for inclusion in 2.6.24-rc1 from the NFS client git tree... Message-Id: <20071004125916.dbe4fd13.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1191525363.6739.12.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <1191454876.6726.32.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20071004085206.0a8e37b5@poseidon.drzeus.cx> <1191506450.6685.17.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20071004184304.6e71ab6d@poseidon.drzeus.cx> <20071004114243.3161af16.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1191525363.6739.12.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1110 Lines: 27 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:16:03 -0400 Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > > > That would be perfect. It can even be in non-legacy mode by default, > > > just as long as you can go back to the old behaviour when/if you run > > > into a non-LFS application. > > > > > > > Wouldn't a mount option be better? > > I suppose that might be OK if you know that the 32-bit legacy > applications will only touch one or two servers, but that sounds like a > niche thing. > > On the downside, forcing all those people who have portable 64-bit aware > applications to upgrade their version of mount just in order to have > stat64() work correctly seems unnecessarily complicated. I'd prefer not > to have to do that unless someone comes up with a good reason why we > must. Confused. You don't need to modify mount(8) when adding a new mount option? - 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/