On 10/13/2010 02:56 PM, Jeff Layton 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. Fine... Lets just focus on that issue... > > 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... In general I agree... but removing functionality (i.e. umount.nfs) can cause more pain than just leaving things as is... 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
