Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:22:59 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>
Cc: Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>,
        Linux NFS Mailing list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>, jlayton@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Avoid reverse resolution for server name
Message-ID: <20130409192259.GD3800@fieldses.org>
References: <515B2F8D.3030302@RedHat.com>
 <1364931149-18484-2-git-send-email-simo@redhat.com>
 <5162C8A5.4030307@RedHat.com>
 <1365430116.20560.6.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org>
 <51644CC5.3070609@RedHat.com>
 <1365528308.20560.42.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org>
 <5164514A.7020606@RedHat.com>
 <20130409185445.GA3800@fieldses.org>
 <51646838.3050209@RedHat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <51646838.3050209@RedHat.com>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:12:56PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/04/13 14:54, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Argh, no, one away or another the default needs to be to not do the PTR
> > lookup.
> Fine... 
>  
> > 
> > The transition Simo's using was Jeff's suggestion.  Let's just stick to
> > that if we don't have a good reason.
> Yeah... I would like to avoid adding to flags... I don't think both are 
> needed.

So, no flags.

> > (But I don't have strong opinions about how to do it either.  I'd
> > actually be OK with being harsh and just switching to the new behavior
> > without any option.)
> My crutch is I'm not a big DNS guy so I'm not sure how much breakage 
> would occur... So I would rather be on the safe side and give people
> a way to go back... 

So, yes to flags.  I'm confused!

I guess we can be moderately harsh: switch to the new default and
provide only a flag to restore the old default for whoever wants it, but
not a flag to specify the new default.  Is that what you mean?

--b.