Re: Is order for "exportfs -r" and rpc.mountd important?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thursday December 4, t.bubeck@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> It's very good that it is fixed in Fedora (my preferred distribution), but it 
> is still wrong in SuSe (verified) and probably more.

Could you be more specific about SuSe please?  I just checked 11.1,
11.0, 10.3, SLES10sp2 and SLES9sp4 and they all look like they have it
in the right order.

> 
> A better way would be to fix NFS and its utilities itself instead of fixing 
> the distribution. This means, that the way the kernel and nfs-utils interact 
> should be made more robust (see my posting before).

Each distro has the its own init scripts.  The best that we as upstream
can do is document what is required.
The fact that "mount -t nfsd /proc/fs/nfsd" should be first on the
server is very clear from the README file distributed with nfs-utils.

Can you be more precise about what you suggest could be fixed in NFS
and its utilities?

You said in the original email:

> Questions: is this behaviour a bug or at least bad? Shouldn't exportfs being 
> changed, so that when it detects "new" mode it will never feed rmtab into the 
> kernel and rely upon rpc.mountd answering the kernels questions as stated 
> in "man exportfs"?

I believe that when exportfs detects "new" mode it will never feed
rmtab into the kernel.  So there is nothing to be fixed there.

Confused?

Thanks,
NeilBrown

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux