Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:59594 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753325Ab3LQPY4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:24:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:24:54 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Joakim Tjernlund Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, steved@redhat.com Subject: Re: nfs-utils-1.2.9 does not play well with linux 3.10.x Message-ID: <20131217152454.GB9019@fieldses.org> References: <20131216185419.GB31816@fieldses.org> <20131216200301.GD31816@fieldses.org> <20131216202345.GF31816@fieldses.org> <20131217033849.GA3490@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 07:30:38AM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > "J. Bruce Fields" wrote on 2013/12/17 04:38:49: > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:24:03PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > "J. Bruce Fields" wrote on 2013/12/16 21:23:45: > > > > > > > From: "J. Bruce Fields" > > > > To: Joakim Tjernlund , > > > > Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, steved@redhat.com > > > > Date: 2013/12/16 21:23 > > > > Subject: Re: nfs-utils-1.2.9 does not play well with linux 3.10.x > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:21:15PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > > I tested this on my system(which has the above kernel patch) and I > > > > noticed > > > > > a difference: > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > rpc.nfsd: Writing version string to kernel: -2 +3 +4 > > > > > which is different than previous > > > > > rpc.nfsd: Writing version string to kernel: +4.1 -4.2 -2 +3 +4 > > > > > > > > > > The "+4.1" is missing. > > > > > > > > Yes, that's intentional. Is it causing you any problem? > > > > > > I don't know yet, but I don't think it would be a problem for me. > > > However, are you not changing the defaults here? In that > > > case someone else relying on 4.1 might have a problem I guess. > > > > That's just restoring the behavior we had before > > 12a590f8d556c00a9502eeebaa763d906222d521, and will still result in 4.1 > > being turned on if the kernel is recent enough. > > What is an recent enough kernel? Does not 3.10.24 patched with the patch I > mentioned > earlier? I thought it would make 3.10 look like a 3.11 which have 4.2 > supported. > If I am mistaken we good I guess. Sorry, I don't understand exactly what your concern is. --b.