On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:56:01 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:45:57 -0400 > Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I would say send the UMNT, since it does not cause any pain to send it > > verses the pain that could be cause by not sending it... > > > > This is a perfect example of fixing something that is not > > broken... We can put our energy in better place that worrying > > about things like this... IMHO... > > But it *is* broken. As Chuck pointed out, the main problem is that mtab > handling is broken on remounts. That's a real problem that needs to be > fixed. > > I agree that our time is better spent elsewhere. I just think that we > ought to make that happen by eliminating the unnecessary umount helper. > The less code that we need to maintain, the better... > Sorry, let me clarify... we'll still need to fix -o remount handling in mount.nfs. At the same time though, we can reduce our maintenance burden by getting rid of umount.nfs. I just don't think it serves much of a purpose these days... -- 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
