On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:10:08AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > 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? Yes, let's just add the additional mount attempt for now, and figure out what to do about the legacy interface as a next step. --b. -- 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
