Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:39070 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751180AbeAJRg4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:36:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:36:56 -0500 From: Bruce Fields To: Steve Dickson Cc: Chuck Lever , Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Add server-side support for junctions to nfs-utils Message-ID: <20180110173656.GC26882@fieldses.org> References: <20180108213356.20133.54161.stgit@manet.1015granger.net> <20180109192100.GB18087@fieldses.org> <492B1883-83EE-40AF-AA8C-1B797D842E5E@oracle.com> <01acd06d-98d4-c6ff-5ef1-b6edbb447405@RedHat.com> <20180110171704.GB26882@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 Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:26:10PM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > On 01/10/2018 12:17 PM, Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:13:39PM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 01/09/2018 02:36 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 2:21 PM, bfields@fieldses.org wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for doing this! I may not get the chance to do a real review, > >>>> but I'm in favor of the basic idea. > >>> > >>> How do you feel about building support for junctions into mountd, > >>> and getting rid of the libnfsjunct DLL ? > >> I would rather not put new functionality in daemons that needs rpcbind. > >> With the idea of, someday, having clean v4-only configuration > >> (aka no mountd, statd, or lockd). > > > > rpc.mountd is used by v4 for a lot of stuff already, so it's not going > > away. > Understood.... I guess I'm looking for a way to replace it with > a command the kernel can call to only do v4 stuff. > Would something like that make sense? It would be a fair amount of work and I don't think there's a strong reason to do it. rpc.mountd -N2 -N3 should do what we want. --b. > > > Is it trying to register with rpcbind in the case it's called > > with -N2 -N3? That would be a bug. > Looking at the code... probably not... > > steved. > > > > --b. > >