On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:49:56 -0400 Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > To keep this on track, I think we need to treat this as 2 separate > > discussions: > > > > 1) how to we ensure that /proc/fs/nfsd is actually mounted when > > rpc.nfsd is run? > > > > 2) what do we do about the legacy nfsctl() interface? > > > > These are separate but related questions... I was just pointing out that checking the return code from the system() call isn't sufficient. Because of the way most people have modprobe set up, it can return an error even though nfsdfs ended up being mounted anyway. Checking for the presence of the file after attempting the mount would be a more reliable test. Assuming we're in agreement there, we have another question to settle...If the mount attempt fails, what should we do about it? With my original patch, we fall back to using nfsctl(). You're suggesting that we should error out there. I'm not opposed to that, but it does mean dropping support for some really old kernels. It also means that we can remove some dead code in rpc.nfsd. OTOH, the fallback might allow nfsd to keep working for some people. Maybe it would be better to just log a scary warning and fall back to using nfsctl() for now. In a couple of releases, we could start returning an error there and rip out the legacy interface code, or compile it out by default and allow people to compile it in via a configure option? -- 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
