On Thu, 17 May 2012 12:58:45 -0500 Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 17 May 2012 12:03:26 -0500 > > Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Sachin Prabhu <sprabhu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 15:03 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > >> >> Traditionally, this ver= option was used to specify the "options > >> >> version" that we're passing in. It has always been set to '1' though > >> >> and we have never changed that. > >> >> > >> >> Eventually we want to have a ver= (or vers=) option that allows users > >> >> to specify the SMB version that they want to use to talk to the server. > >> >> > >> >> At that point, this option will just get in the way. Let's go ahead > >> >> and remove it now in preparation for that day. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Do we need 'ver=' mount option to specify the SMB version number? Isn't > >> > 'vers=' sufficient for this? > >> > >> Yes - "vers" is sufficient (although I am fine with adding synonyms to > >> make it easier for nfs users - e.g. "smbvers=" or if we want to have > >> smb2 specific utility programs (e.g. for a phone or tablet) that call > >> do_mount automatically set vers=2.1. > ... > > Yes, I don't think we're going to use ver= as a synonym for vers=. > > > > That said, we haven't needed a way for the kernel to recognize the > > userspace "options version" and no other userspace mount helper that > > I'm aware of has such a thing. After all, a userspace mount helper > > isn't even required...someone can mount cifs just fine w/o one as long > > as they pass in ip=. > > > > Handling an options version is more of a problem with binary mount > > options, where you need to know if you're breaking the ABI. With text > > based options, it's just not an issue. > > > > So I think going ahead and getting rid of this in the kernel is the > > right thing to do. It's just useless cruft that may get in the way in > > the future. > > > > If the kernel ever needs to determine the mount helper "version" for > > some reason, then it can treat a lack of ver= at all identically to how > > it handles a helper that passes in ver=1. > > The main case I can think of is debugging - there were a few times > that I have wanted to know the mount.cifs version in looking at dmesg > output of mount failures. On a normal linux distro you can go to the > package manager or simply go to bash and type mount.cifs -V that isn't > as practical on a phone or on some Linux tablets. > If that's the case, then what we have now is completely inadequate to that task, since the mount helper has always passed in "ver=1". That doesn't tell you anything about the actual version in use. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
