On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:37:17 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:24:50PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:38:53 +1000 > > Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I don't think it is all that bad. It is a shame you have to use system() > > > rather than just calling mount() directly but I guess we need that to > > > update /etc/mtab. > > > > > > > Yeah, that's the main reason I went with system(). It's worthwhile to > > note that I'm using the exact same command that's in modprobe.conf on > > fedora/RHEL. > > > > > Suggestions: > > > > > > - just don't do that. Use /etc/init.d/nfsserver start (or whatever the > > > distro uses). > > > > I don't think we should count on that. Most people will use that, but > > it seems like we shouldn't require that for this to work as expected... > > > > > - Make /proc/fs/nfsd and auto-mount point. That sounds like the systemd > > > approach. > > > > Yes, I think systemd will take care of this eventually, but I think we > > need something for existing distros that aren't using it yet. > > I thought Neil was saying that this would be a "systemd-like" approach, > not that it would actually require systemd. Am I missing something? That is what I was saying, but making autofs or am-utils a pre-requisite for nfsd doesn't sound like a good idea. I would "like" it to work like this, but I don't think it is really practical. > > I can't come up with an immediate objection. I'm also not opposed to > your patch as it stands. I agree, the 'no-op NFSD request' is very dependent on specific user-space setup so we don't want to burn that into rpc.nfsd. I support that patch as it stands. 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
