Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The problem with this is that this breaks nfs_follow_remote_path() used by > > NFS4 to find the root object to mount for the mount() syscall. > > The above message is basically dishonest. > > That's not AT ALL the problem. Dishonest? In what way am I lying about it? After I wrote that line I went on to explain how to reproduce it and what was happening. That was the problem addressed by that patch. I was including it as a means to fix the NFS regression and as I pointed out in the cover note, it can be actually be dropped if one of the further patches is introduced. > That problem could have been fixed with a one-liner patch that already exists. Which is fragile. > This whole patch-series looks like just excuses for doing stupid things. I believe you to be wrong. Anyway, if I'm going to be accused of dishonesty, I see no further reason to continuing in this discussion. Have a good weekend. David -- 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
