From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: nfs4 filesystem mounted via the "bind" option reports wrong fstype Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:32:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20070827193242.GJ3118@fieldses.org> References: <46D318D3.9020101@oxeva.fr> <20070827184059.GI3118@fieldses.org> <20070827191507.GI21089@ftp.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Gabriel Barazer , nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jkar8572@users.sourceforge.net To: Al Viro Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070827191507.GI21089@ftp.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:15:07PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:40:59PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > There's no reason not to just mount server:/exports/data directly at > > /home/data; the bind mounts are just a workaround for the somewhat > > primitive exports facility on the server side. > > Bullshit. Bindings are first-class operations on _client_, regardless > of fs types involved. I know. Did I say something to the contrary? Maybe I was too terse; in more detail: the original poster appears to be mounting server:/exports/data by first mounting server:/ somewhere and then bind-mounting the exports/data someplace else. I couldn't see an obvious reason they'd be using two steps instead of just performing a single mount of server:/exports/data. So my assumption was that this was due to a confused memory of some server-side setup instructions. (On the server side, nfs4 export setup often requires the administrator to do some extra bind mounts which shouldn't really be necessary.) --b.