On 10/09/2009 11:03 AM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/08/2009 01:37 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>> Don't try NFSv4 if any MNT protocol related options were presented by
>>> the user.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> utils/mount/stropts.c | 7 +++++++
>>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/utils/mount/stropts.c b/utils/mount/stropts.c
>>> index 0685caa..3401f63 100644
>>> --- a/utils/mount/stropts.c
>>> +++ b/utils/mount/stropts.c
>>> @@ -564,6 +564,13 @@ static int nfs_try_mount_v4(struct nfsmount_info
>>> *mi)
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (mi->version == 0) {
>>> + if (po_contains(options, "mounthost") ||
>>> + po_contains(options, "mountaddr") ||
>>> + po_contains(options, "mountvers") ||
>>> + po_contains(options, "mountproto")) {
>>> + errno = EPROTONOSUPPORT;
>>> + goto out_fail;
>>> + }
>> I think it make senses to assume the version negation should
>> start version 3 when mountXXXX options exist instead of
>> failing a mount they probably didn't want..
>
> Yes, that's exactly what this patch does. NFSv4 negotiation is skipped
> if any mountfoo options are presented by the user.
>
> It's arguable where to put this check. This seemed like the most
> straightforward way to deal with it.
I guess a comment would have made it a bit clear... and I was thinking
the check should be made before the nfs_try_mount_v4() verses having
nfs_try_mount_v4() fail in a recoverable way...
steved.
--
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
