On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:16:06 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 04:30:19PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:01:31 -0400 > > Tom Talpey <tmtalpey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >I'd rather see these people just update their kernels so that this > > > >isn't needed... > > > > > > Agreed. Would it make sense to log a message when the default 2049 > > > is used? At least then, there's a chance an admin will know it's needed. > > > > > > > That's sounds reasonable. I've already asked Steve to commit the latest > > set, but we should be able to add something like this untested patch on > > top of it. > > > > If it looks ok, I'll test it out and officially resend it... > > > > Thoughts? > > Would it work to do this in mount?--do the mount, then check any new > info file in rpc_pipefs to see if there's a port field? > > Then we could give the error to the user where it's actually useful (as > output from the mount command). And also maybe only bother with it when > port= was specified. > > --b. > It's not really an error per-se. Given that 99%+ NFS connections are done on standard ports, I consider this to just be a helpful warning that might point someone in the right direction when this does occur. Adding code to mount for this seems like overkill, IMO... -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
