Chuck Lever wrote:
Peter Staubach wrote:
Chuck Lever wrote:
To provide compatibility with automounters who use a common set of
mount
options for all file systems, change the NFS in-kernel mount option
parser
to ignore mount options it doesn't recognize.
Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Yet another NFS mount patch! Build tested only. Comments?
fs/nfs/super.c | 7 ++-----
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c
index f921902..a7201f0 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/super.c
@@ -1044,7 +1044,8 @@ static int nfs_parse_mount_options(char *raw,
break;
default:
- goto out_unknown;
+ printk(KERN_INFO "NFS: unrecognized mount option '%s'"
+ " ignored\n", p);
}
}
@@ -1070,10 +1071,6 @@ out_unrec_xprt:
out_unrec_sec:
printk(KERN_INFO "NFS: unrecognized security flavor\n");
return 0;
-
-out_unknown:
- printk(KERN_INFO "NFS: unknown mount option: %s\n", p);
- return 0;
}
/*
This will potentially cause a very large number of messages to be
printed in a valid deployment. Do we really need the message?
I was wondering about that.
I left it in because it's useful to know when a valid mount option is
misspelled. In that case it might cause an important option (such as
"noac") to be ignored.
There do seem to be valid uses for the message. However, it
could also end up being a bad thing.
Perhaps we could just gather the unknown options and lump
them together in something that would be visible via /proc/mounts
or some such. Something like "unknown=..." in the options list.
ps
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
