J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:41:40PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote: > > Well, I don't see any difference between a mandatory attribute and a > > recommended attribute that the server claims to support via the > > supported_attributes attribute. > > > > I do believe that the server can choose not to return all of the > > mandatory and supported recommended attributes in the readdir reply. > > (If not, why have a bitmap of returned attributes?) > > > > One example here is the mounted_on_fileid, which some servers choose > > to only "support" for server mount points. (The FreeBSD server > > returns > > this attribute for all file handles, setting it to the same value as > > fileid for non-mount-points, but I am pretty sure some other servers > > do not return mounted_on_fileid for non-mount-points.) > > That doesn't sound like traditional unix readdir behavior, and isn't > the > behavior described by the spec; looking at 5661 5.8.2.23 (haven't > compared other rfcs): > > "If the server detects that there is no mounted point at the > target file object, then the value for mounted_on_fileid that it > returns is the same as that of the fileid attribute." > > Also, the supported_attrs attribute is a filesystem-wide attribute. I > don't think we generally allow attributes to vary between "supported" > and "unsupported" on a single filesystem. > > --b. Well, I'm pretty sure some server did (maybe it has been changed more recently) would only return mounted_on_fileid in the Readdir reply if it was at a mount point. I remember because it broke the FreeBSD client and I had to tweak the code. I'll try and remember to stick something in the FreeBSD client to spot this for the next Bakeathon. rick -- 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
