Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762522AbXJEA7W (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:59:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759769AbXJEA7O (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:59:14 -0400 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]:34201 "EHLO pat.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756397AbXJEA7N (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:59:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [NFS] What's slated for inclusion in 2.6.24-rc1 from the NFS client git tree... From: Trond Myklebust To: Andrew Morton Cc: drzeus-list@drzeus.cx, staubach@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20071004125916.dbe4fd13.akpm@linux-foundation.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> <20071004125916.dbe4fd13.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:58:47 -0400 Message-Id: <1191545927.6739.21.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Resend: resent X-UiO-ClamAV-Virus: No X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0.0, required=12.0, autolearn=disabled, none) X-UiO-Scanned: 67270C138BFF0B8889CE6C92C89C3384C9090417 X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.10.9 spam_score: 0 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 217 total 4299530 max/h 8345 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1509 Lines: 37 On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 12:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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? Prior to 2.6.22, the 'mount' program used a binary blob for passing the NFS mount options to the kernel. It is only very recently that we have started doing in-kernel parsing of text strings, and in order to make use of that, people will need to upgrade to the latest version of nfs-utils. 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/