From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Subject: Re: inconsistent mount attributes (ro/rw), RHEL5 / Netapp
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:39:15 +0800
Message-ID: <1179153555.3811.57.camel@raven.themaw.net>
References: <4627B3DD.5050409@amd.com>
	<1177007479.6623.14.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
	<4627D303.8060009@amd.com>
	<1177020662.6628.30.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
	<4627EBFC.2090704@amd.com>
	<462CFC92.2080201@amd.com> <463B97E6.4030009@amd.com>
	<1178314889.6533.19.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
	<1178379473.4559.24.camel@raven.themaw.net>
	<1178385472.6561.43.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
	<20070514131743.GG31764@petra.dvoda.cz>
	<1179149048.6858.5.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: Paul Krizak <paul.krizak@amd.com>, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <1179149048.6858.5.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net

On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 09:24 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 15:17 +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 01:17:52PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 23:37 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 17:41 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > > So is there "anything at all" we can do to change this behavior now,
> > > > apart from teaching mount to about it. Having the /etc/mtab
> > > > and /proc/mounts recording different mount options for a mount is wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > How should mount(8) handle the situation?
> > > 
> > > I'd rather like to have mount(2) handle the situation by returning an
> > > error if the mount options cannot be satisfied.
> > 
> >  Agree, that makes sense. Unfortuantely this change is probably not
> >  backwardly compatible. Maybe add a new mount(2) flag MS_STRICT which
> >  disable a mount when the mount options cannot be satisfied.
> 
> The kernel would be sending the error to the mount program when it
> cannot satisfy the request. There is no backwards compatibilty issue.

I guess that depends on how you interpret backwardly compatible.

Deciding to now fail mounts in this case would turn an unfortunate side
effect of an urgently needed change into a disaster for some users. I
think it's best to leave it as it is and push on with the needed VFS
changes.

Ian


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs