On 02/02/12 12:03, Adamson, Dros wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Bryan Schumaker wrote: > >> On 02/01/12 18:07, Adamson, Dros wrote: >> >>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/01/2012 09:06 PM, Weston Andros Adamson wrote: >>>>> Don't allow invalid 'vers' and 'minorversion' combinations in mount options, >>>>> such as "vers=3,minorversion=1". >>>>> >>>> >>>> Just my $0.017 I don't see the point in this. >>>> >>>> If vers==3 then minorversion is ignored, just like today. >>>> What kind of extra protection does it buy us? >>> >>> No, minorversion is not ignored when vers=3. >> >> >> But after mounting, does setting vers=3, minorversion=1 cause any change in NFS v3 behavior? >> > > No it doesn't. Past the parsing of options, minorversion is ignored for versions other than 4. > > I just don't understand how anyone can have problem with this patch. Why would we want to validate minorversion in some cases, but not all cases? How would this patch be a bad thing? > I don't have a problem with the patch, it makes sense that we shouldn't confuse developers or users. I was just curious if there was a spot where we had "if minor_version == 1: do_something()" without checking for major_version == 4. - Bryan > It's about usability -- if this can confuse NFS developers, how are end users going to handle it? > > -dros -- 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
