Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:42531 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753094AbbBKS12 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:27:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:27:27 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Tom Haynes Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: default NFSv4.2 to on Message-ID: <20150211182727.GJ25696@fieldses.org> References: <20150202161557.GF22301@fieldses.org> <20150211123757.GA10532@infradead.org> <20150211141257.GA25696@fieldses.org> <20150211141619.GA24299@infradead.org> <20150211145413.GC25696@fieldses.org> <20150211181231.GA80012@kitty.kitty> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20150211181231.GA80012@kitty.kitty> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:12:31AM -0800, Tom Haynes wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:54:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > I agree there's a documentation and marketing problem: it would simplify > > communication with users if "this server supports 4.2" reliably meant > > support for some minimum list of features. > > > > The "marketing" message over NFSv4.2 has been pretty consistent - everything > is optional and a fully compliant server can return not supported for > every new feature. I.e., a NFSv4.2 server is pretty simple if you have > an existing NFSv4.1 server. Yes, and I like that, but it's not without tradeoffs. --b.