On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 02:16:07PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > Commit f45663ce5fb30f76a3414ab3ac69f4dd320e760a was missing a hunk that > prevented the new "sloppy" mount option from having any effect. I don't think that on its own would justify sending it in for 2.6.27.[1] > > Tested against 2.6.27-rc. 2.6.26 is not affected. But if I understand right, the effect of leaving out this chunk was to make the *default* behavior "sloppy"? Which seems a drastic change from the previous behavior. And it's a simple enough patch. So I'd be inclined to agree and send it in for 2.6.27.... If Trond doesn't poke his head up by tomorrow, let's go ahead--feel free to send it to Linus with my Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> if I fall off the face of the earth tomorrow. --b. [1] Linus has been pretty hard on -rc patches lately: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122048427801318&w=2 "Here's a simple rule of thumb: - if it's not on the regression list - if it's not a reported security hole - if it's not on the reported oopses list then why are people sending it to me?" > > Thanks to Neil Brown for reporting this. > > Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > fs/nfs/super.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c > index 5b2aa04..e3ac650 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/super.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/super.c > @@ -1279,6 +1279,12 @@ static int nfs_parse_mount_options(char *raw, > } > } > > + if (errors > 0) { > + dfprintk(MOUNT, "NFS: parsing encountered %d error%s\n", > + errors, (errors == 1 ? "" : "s")); > + if (!sloppy) > + return 0; > + } > return 1; > > out_nomem: > -- 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
