> On May 24, 2024, at 7:16 AM, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 21.05.24 12:01, Jeff Layton wrote: >> On Tue, 2024-05-21 at 11:55 +0200, Paul Menzel wrote: >>> Am 19.04.24 um 18:50 schrieb Paul Menzel: >>> >>>> Since at least Linux 6.8-rc6, Linux logs the warning below: >>>> >>>> NFSD: Unable to initialize client recovery tracking! (-110) >>>> >>>> I haven’t had time to bisect yet, so if you have an idea, that’d be great. >>> >>> 74fd48739d0488e39ae18b0168720f449a06690c is the first bad commit >>> commit 74fd48739d0488e39ae18b0168720f449a06690c >>> Author: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Fri Oct 13 09:03:53 2023 -0400 >>> >>> nfsd: new Kconfig option for legacy client tracking >>> >>> We've had a number of attempts at different NFSv4 client tracking >>> methods over the years, but now nfsdcld has emerged as the clear winner >>> since the others (recoverydir and the usermodehelper upcall) are >>> problematic. >> [...] >> It sounds like you need to enable nfsdcld in your environment. The old >> recovery tracking methods are deprecated. The only surviving one >> requires the nfsdcld daemon to be running when recovery tracking is >> started. Alternately, you can enable this option in your kernels if you >> want to keep using the deprecated methods in the interim. > > Hmm. Then why didn't this new config option default to "Y" for a while > (say a year or two) before changing the default to off? That would have > prevented people like Paul from running into the problem when running > "olddefconfig". I think that is what Linus would have wanted in a case > like this, but might be totally wrong there (I CCed him, in case he > wants to share his opinion, but maybe he does not care much). That's fair. I recall we believed at the time that very few people if anyone currently use a legacy recovery tracking mechanism, and the workaround, if they do, is easy. > But I guess that's too late now, unless we want to meddle with config > option names. But I guess that might not be worth it after half a year > for something that only causes a warning (aiui). In Paul's case, the default behavior might prevent proper NFSv4 state recovery, which is a little more hazardous than a mere warning, IIUC. To my surprise, it often takes quite some time for changes like this to matriculate into mainstream usage, so half a year isn't that long. We might want to change to a more traditional deprecation path (default Y with warning, wait, default N, wait, redact the old code). -- Chuck Lever
