On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:10:26PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > ACK. I'll take this patch, but should Bruce take the other 2? I believe > he should already have other changes to rpcb_clnt.c in his tree... Yes I do; I'll take a look. (My goal is to get through my backlog from Trond this afternoon....) I recall one remaining uncertainty about the patches already in my for-2.6.28: they allow building either a kernel that supports nfs/ipv6, or a kernel that works with older nfs-utils, but not both. I'd prefer a stricter level of backwards compatibility. The current approach may be confusing to distributors, early adopters, and testers. But I'm willing to settle for it and let it be a lesson to us if it turns out to cause more problems than expected. Talking to Trond the other day he asked why we couldn't use PROG_MISMATCH (unsupported program version) error to fall back. Chuck says in the changelog comment: "I tried adding some automatic logic to fall back if registering with a v4 protocol request failed, but there are too many corner cases." Which I can believe, though I haven't looked at it myself. In any case I'd like Trond's ACK or NACK. --b. -- 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
