Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from 8bytes.org ([85.214.48.195]:57365 "EHLO h2027444.stratoserver.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754882Ab2FHNdT (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:33:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by h2027444.stratoserver.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2365A12B094 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:33:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:33:17 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: Bryan Schumaker Cc: Trond Myklebust , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFS regression in v3.5-rc1: mount.nfs yells about incorrect mount option Message-ID: <20120608133317.GW12795@8bytes.org> References: <20120607150456.GO12795@8bytes.org> <4FD0C4C2.8020605@netapp.com> <20120607155006.GR12795@8bytes.org> <4FD0CEB0.9040804@netapp.com> <20120608130352.GU12795@8bytes.org> <4FD1FC02.2000608@netapp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4FD1FC02.2000608@netapp.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:20:02AM -0400, Bryan Schumaker wrote: > On 06/08/2012 09:03 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Bryan Schumaker wrote: > >> On 06/07/2012 11:50 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > >>> mount -o nfsvers=3 ... > >> > >> What about `mount -o vers=4 ...`? I'm compiling a kernel right now to > >> see if I can reproduce this, what NFS .config options do you have set? > >> (`cat .config | grep CONFIG_NFS_` should be good enough). > > > > Okay, I tracked it down somewhat. The problem is that the nfs-version > > is not set in my case so that data->version in nfs_init_server is 0. The > > function returns -EPROTONOSUPPORT in this case which causes the mount > > to fail. The evil commit is db8333519 and reverting it fixes the issue > > for me. Patch attached. > > Thanks! I wasn't able to reproduce this on Ubuntu 12.04, so now I'm > setting up 10.04 to see if that makes a difference. I'd like to > understand what's going on (and why my other patch didn't fix this > problem) before reverting. Your other patch only touched the nfs4 path, but in my setup nfs3 was in use. Therefore the patch didn't help. I just figured out that nfs_fs_mount is shared between nfs23 and nfs4, so the first patch probably breaks nfs4. I send another one which takes this into account. Regards, Joerg