Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALXu0UcwVRxbG9HD_0U2oK5Le53F3NKQz_H4P4nEesnoWM=BRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d6c218f85f314f28ba94726038782ffada3a2e01.camel@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <d6c218f85f314f28ba94726038782ffada3a2e01.camel@kernel.org>
From:   Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 19 Nov 2023 17:58:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CALXu0Ud2-nrnTLazGXhkvQW+PPuo1xePxG0D51aQDv5BXFaUfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NFSv4.1 --> NFSv4.2 client implementation?
To:     Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 at 13:01, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2023-11-18 at 08:53 +0100, Cedric Blancher wrote:
> > Good morning!
> >
> > What are the differences between NFSv4.1 and NFSv4.2 for a NFSv4
> > client, if we ignore server-side copy and READ_PLUS support?
> > Can a NFSv4.1 client then identify itself als NFSv4.2 client?
> >
>
> Yes. I believe that NFSv4.2 consists entirely of optional features over
> NFSv4.1, so it's legitimate for a client or server to advertise itself
> as a v4.2 capable, but support none of the features.

Can anyone confirm this? So NFSv4.2 does not require protocol minor
version negotiation, or how does it work?

Ced
-- 
Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@gmail.com>
[https://plus.google.com/u/0/+CedricBlancher/]
Institute Pasteur