On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 05:25:31PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:11 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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]
>
> The original patch for 27 was supposed to fix a regression (ie
> automounter stopped working in heterogenous environments). This patch
> does fix the full regression.
>
> There is already logic in nfs-utils-1.1.3 that maps the "-s" option
> (which has been around for EVAR) to "-o sloppy". This logic is
> enabled for 2.6.27 kernels and later. So this does need to go in 27.
>
> Would it help if I rewrote the description?
Could be. Assume I'm tired and stupid....
> >> 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.
>
> No, the default behavior is as before. The behavior without this
> patch is that the kernel recognizes "sloppy" but it doesn't do
> anything about it.
That can't be right:
> >> + if (errors > 0) {
> >> + dfprintk(MOUNT, "NFS: parsing encountered %d error%s\n",
> >> + errors, (errors == 1 ? "" : "s"));
> >> + if (!sloppy)
> >> + return 0;
> >> + }
> >> return 1;
Ignoring the printk, the *only* change in behavior here happens when
sloppy is *not* set. Right?
--b. (not a big fan of not's)
--
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
