From: "David P. Quigley" Subject: Re: Union mounts, NFS, and locking Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:22:28 -0400 Message-ID: <1247779348.2516.136.camel@localhost> References: <20090714201940.GF27582@shell> <200907142036.n6EKaexe017464@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <20090714220515.GH27582@shell> <20090715172758.GA13893@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Valerie Aurora , Erez Zadok , Trond Myklebust , Alexander Viro , Jan Blunck , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov ([63.239.67.1]:43144 "EHLO msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933391AbZGPWO5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:14:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090715172758.GA13893@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 13:27 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: [snip] > The mount options aren't really in the protocol--so it'd probably take > the form of a filesystem-granularity attribute that the client could > query (and then fail the mount if the client didn't like the answer). > > But even then: the fact is that someone will want to update the > filesystem some day. And there's no way to force every client > administrator to remount. So we'd have to decide how to handle that > case. So currently this is the case but at the last IETF meeting I proposed a remount callback to handle the case of a mass file relabel on the server. I think Beepy wrote it down on the possible 4.2 items. However I wouldn't expect to see anything related to that for a while and that assumes that someone picks up the ball and runs with it to begin with. Dave P.S. Note this is NFSv4 we are talking about I don't have a solution for v2(does anyone even use it any more?) or v3