From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: Sign Extentions with Tru64 FSIDs. Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:16:15 -0500 Message-ID: <45EEC92F.6080302@RedHat.com> References: <45EC7F0F.4090600@RedHat.com> <1173130678.6315.7.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <45EC8FD3.4010809@redhat.com> <1173132182.6315.27.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <45EC9837.1010504@redhat.com> <1173186308.6393.7.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <45ED8135.2010008@RedHat.com> <45EDE060.3020501@RedHat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "'nfs@lists.sourceforge.net'" To: "Talpey, Thomas" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOwwF-0000X3-Fm for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:16:19 -0800 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1HOwwG-0002Nm-2E for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:16:21 -0800 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Talpey, Thomas wrote: > The current code already supports disabling READDIRPLUS to > servers that don't support it. It happens after the first bad > response. The intentional option is a good idea for other > reasons though, huge directories yield huge attributes. Yes... I agree this could be useful in other applications... > > One problem I see with the mount option is that it might be > silently ignored by old mount binaries. That will confuse users > who install a new kernel and don't update util-linux/nfs-utils. The problem is not so much old mount binaries, since they will fail with something similar to "Unsupported nfs mount option: nordirplus", its using new mount binaries with old kernels. The kernels will silently ignore the option. One could tell the option is not set by catting /proc/mounts (since the "nordirplus" would not exist), but I agree there is potential for confusion... But on he other hand I didn't want to increase the mount version from 5 to 6 since I think that whole mounting version stuff is just rats nest.. and Two, I really didn't mounts to start failing (due to mis-versioning) for a option that will probably never be used... But it is trivial to increase the version, but it just causes so many headaches I was trying to avoid it... Right or wrong that was the reasoning... steved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs