Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47199 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756785Ab2CEMDT (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2012 07:03:19 -0500 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q25C3I6b027242 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 07:03:19 -0500 Received: from badhat.bos.devel.redhat.com (vpn-9-158.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.9.158]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q25C3IcD009223 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 07:03:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4F54AB8A.40806@RedHat.com> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:03:22 -0500 From: Steve Dickson MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Get normalized paths for comparing NFS export paths References: <4F2E620F.5090100@panasas.com> <20120207204401.GA31752@us.ibm.com> <4F511B21.1020907@RedHat.com> <20120302192758.GA28389@us.ibm.com> <4F513429.1050209@RedHat.com> <20120302220108.GA17119@us.ibm.com> <4F525741.2060404@RedHat.com> <1330801976.2781.19.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4F53ED3C.2020209@RedHat.com> <1330901196.14357.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20120305044638.GA12833@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20120305044638.GA12833@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/04/2012 11:46 PM, Malahal Naineni wrote: > Myklebust, Trond [Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com] wrote: >> No. Please don't strip the multiple slashes either. Just leave the path >> alone after you've separated it from the devicename. >> >> It is quite OK to normalize the path on the _client_ side (i.e. >> change //mnt to /mnt or whatever) but don't touch the server side. > > As I understand, we can normalize and store it in /etc/mtab and > normalization is done by the kernel for /proc/mounts. In other words, > follow the kernel and make the /etc/mtab entries consistent with the > kernel. > > In my patch, I decided to normalize at umount time when we compare the > mtab and proc file entries. > > Any opinion on which one is better? I'm thinking either before the unmount or after a successful v4 mount... steved.