Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:54087 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753120Ab3I0UJm (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:09:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:09:39 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Jongman Heo Cc: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regression caused by commit 4bdc33ed ("NFSDv4.2: Add NFS v4.2 support to the NFS server") Message-ID: <20130927200939.GB22640@fieldses.org> References: <15262316.12141380248492298.JavaMail.weblogic@epml04> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <15262316.12141380248492298.JavaMail.weblogic@epml04> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 02:21:33AM +0000, Jongman Heo wrote: > Hi, > > > > >------- Original Message ------- > >Sender : J. Bruce Fields > >Date : 2013-09-27 10:12 (GMT+09:00) > >Title : Re: Re: Re: Regression caused by commit 4bdc33ed ("NFSDv4.2: Add NFS v4.2 support to the NFS server") > > > >On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:57:57PM +0000, Jongman Heo wrote: > >> >------- Original Message ------- > >> >Sender : J. Bruce Fields > >> >This is pretty weird--it's not at all obvious how that patch would > >> >affect this. > >> > > >> >You're absolutely positive that the *only* thing you're changing on the > >> >server between the "good" and "bad" cases is that one kernel patch? > >> >You're not changing anything in userspace? > >> > > >> > >> Yes, pretty sure. > >> > >> >What does "cat /proc/fs/nfsd/versions" report in the good and bad cases? > >> > > >> >(BTW, out of curiosity: what kind of client is this that only supports > >> >NFSv2 and NFSv3? Even for an embedded system that's a bit surprising.) > >> > > >> >--b. > >> > > >> > >> Here are /proc/fs/nfsd/versions information for good and bad cases ; > >> > >> good (commit 4bdc33ed reverted) > >> > >> # cat /proc/fs/nfsd/versions > >> +2 +3 +4 +4.1 > >> > >> > >> bad (current linus git) > >> > >> # cat /proc/fs/nfsd/versions > >> -2 +3 +4 +4.1 -4.2 > >> > >> > >> I don't know why the commit 4bdc33ed makes this difference ( from +2 to -2 ). > >> > >> My NFS server just uses Fedora 19 + latest kernel (which is not a rare setup...), > > > >The thing is, nfs-utils *did* make exactly this change with commit > >6b4e4965a6b82e8d49cea1c0316b951ba4e9e83e "rpc.nfsd: No longer advertise > >NFS v2 support." in 1.2.9-rc4 which entered f19 recently. And that > >kernel commit doesn't look related. So I strongly suspect that you got > >the nfs-utils update (or rebooted after the update) at the same time as > >bisecting, and that confused the bisect results. > > > > No, I haven't changed/upgraded nfs-utils package during git bisect. Well, all it would take would be a long-ago yum update that you'd forgotten about by the time you rebooted to a new kernel at which point the new rpc.nfsd behavior would take affect on restarting the nfs server. > And I can still reproduce the issue. So I'm still really skeptical but if you're positive then I guess I should go try to reproduce and make sure there's not something very screwed up with the nfsd/versions interface. --b.