On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:18:19AM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > 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 Maybe. But as I say, make it two separate steps: 1. Add code to attempt the mount. 2. Add code to turn off the legacy interface if the mount doesn't work. They're two separate issues with separate justifications. --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
