From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: inconsistent mount attributes (ro/rw), RHEL5 / Netapp Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:27:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1179275254.6464.88.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> 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> <1179153555.3811.57.camel@raven.themaw.net> <1179157631.6474.8.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1179158812.3811.68.camel@raven.themaw.net> <17992.58783.827023.697258@notabene.brown> <1179184319.6467.7.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <17992.63372.522494.519874@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Paul Krizak , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Ian Kent To: Neil Brown 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 1Ho7Mm-000848-N0 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 15 May 2007 17:27:44 -0700 Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1Ho7Mo-0008NT-1k for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 15 May 2007 17:27:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: <17992.63372.522494.519874@notabene.brown> 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 On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 09:58 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > Would we need to rev the mount_data version to add such a flag, or are > we sure that unused flags are 0, and so simply add > > #define NFS_MOUNT_UNSHARED 0x8000 /* 5 */ > > (I don't understand the NFS_MOUNT_FLAGMASK. Can the top 16 bits of > flags be used?) I don't see why not. It is a private field in a private data structure. I've really never understood the point of that mask in the first place. > If the "you have mixed metaphors" error was unique, the mount.nfs > program could conceivable respond to it by setting the UNSHARED flag, > trying again, and printing a big loud warning.... I wonder if that > would be a good idea... > > But then what if you wanted sharedcache and weren't fussed about exact > options, how would mount.nfs handle that? Finding a matching entry > in /etc/mtab would be hard because fsid matching would be non-trivial. > Maybe we want two flags "UNSHARED" and "SHARE_AND_IGNORE_MY_SETTINGS"?? None of the other filesystems allow you to do this. They will simply return EBUSY, and leave up to you to figure out what is wrong. Trond ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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