J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 08:24:25PM -0400, Janne Karhunen wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Wendy Cheng <s.wendy.cheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Maybe I mislead you in previous post. The "-H" is only an "example" - to
show people how to selectively move an ip address around without affecting
other co-existing nfs ip interface on the same server. I did plan to submit
a complete user mode patch so the program after "-H" will have a default
executable (but user still can use their own if they don't like our nlm
directory structure).
Even if you ship the default executable user would
still need to go and edit it (add the address). Well,
I guess it would not be that much harder than
specifying the -n, but somehow this does seem
more arcane (for simple setups).
In any case, if there's still a legimate use case for -n, even if it's
not great, we should err on the side of fixing it just to save problems
for anyone with an existing working setup.
If -n has never worked at all for anyone, then OK, let's get rid of it.
--b.
Simpler code and consolidated logic flow are always better - would like
to vote for its deletion.
I had a very bad experience with a filesystem (*cough*) that accepted
few mis-understood boundary condition fixes that ended up disturbing the
core logic. It still couldn't recover from it and the code churning
keeps going on until today.
-- Wendy
--
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
