On 08/31/2010 11:13 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > 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. When the mount fails, I think we should exit... basically eliminating the legacy interface code 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
