On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:59:35 -0400 Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 08/31/2010 02:07 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:18:46PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> I really don't think we need to rip the guts out of > >> mountd and exportfs just to remove this one nfsctl() in rpc.nfsd. > > > > I agree. > > > >>> Dropping backwards compatibility may be a reasonable thing to do, but > >>> it's something that we should be very clear about, and that we should > >>> put in a patch that does that and nothing else. > >> So you are talking about doing a complete rewrite of mountd and exportfs > >> just to take out that one call from rpc.nfsd... I just don't see the > >> justification... If we are going to do that, let just think about rewriting > >> all the tools to make the more v4 friendly... something we talked about > >> at the last bakeathon... > > > > All I'm asking is that any patch which disables support for older > > kernels (by ceasing to do the nfsctl) be a *separate* patch that clearly > > states which kernels we're dropping support for. > Fine. The taking out the nfsclt() and/or the adding of the error check > on the mount (basically causing nfsclt() to never be called) will be in > a separate clearly documented patch..... > > > > > Once we decide to drop such support (if we do), that might allow us to > > rip out a lot of additional code. That can be done later. > I agree... > > steved. Sounds good -- doing this as two patches makes much more sense. I think Steve had a good point though -- we should log a message or something if we tried to mount up /proc/fs/nfsd and it didn't work. That'll help clue in people that they have a problem and things might not work as expected. I'll respin the patch to do that and repost once I've tested it. Thanks, -- 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
