On 06/08/2012 09:33 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:20:02AM -0400, Bryan Schumaker wrote:
>> On 06/08/2012 09:03 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Bryan Schumaker wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2012 11:50 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>>>> mount -o nfsvers=3 ...
>>>>
>>>> What about `mount -o vers=4 ...`? I'm compiling a kernel right now to
>>>> see if I can reproduce this, what NFS .config options do you have set?
>>>> (`cat .config | grep CONFIG_NFS_` should be good enough).
>>>
>>> Okay, I tracked it down somewhat. The problem is that the nfs-version
>>> is not set in my case so that data->version in nfs_init_server is 0. The
>>> function returns -EPROTONOSUPPORT in this case which causes the mount
>>> to fail. The evil commit is db8333519 and reverting it fixes the issue
>>> for me. Patch attached.
>>
>> Thanks! I wasn't able to reproduce this on Ubuntu 12.04, so now I'm
>> setting up 10.04 to see if that makes a difference. I'd like to
>> understand what's going on (and why my other patch didn't fix this
>> problem) before reverting.
>
> Your other patch only touched the nfs4 path, but in my setup nfs3 was in
> use. Therefore the patch didn't help. I just figured out that
> nfs_fs_mount is shared between nfs23 and nfs4, so the first patch
> probably breaks nfs4. I send another one which takes this into account.
Would something like this work? (I haven't tried it yet). Setting it in nfs_alloc_parsed_mount_data() might work too...
diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c
index bdd6731..906f09c 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/super.c
@@ -1867,6 +1867,7 @@ static int nfs23_validate_mount_data(void *options,
if (data == NULL)
goto out_no_data;
+ args->version = NFS_DEFAULT_VERSION;
switch (data->version) {
case 1:
data->namlen = 0;
--
>
> Regards,
>
> Joerg
>
>
--
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
