On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:08:56 -0400 Simo Sorce <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 17:58 +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-nfs- > > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simo Sorce > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:49 PM > > > To: Linux NFS Mailing list > > > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Avoid reverse resolution for server name > > > > > > A NFS client should be able to work properly even if the DNS Reverse record > > > for the server is not set. There is no excuse to forcefully prevent that from > > > working when it can. > > > > Note that rpc.statd has the same limitation. > > > > > This patch adds a new -N option that takes an 'on' or 'off' argument and > > > controls whether forced PTR resolution is avoided (on) or performed (off) > > > > '-N' already has a very different meaning on rpc.mountd and rpc.nfsd. It might therefore be better to choose a different name to avoid confusion. > > Also, why do a single option with an 'on/off' argument instead of just choosing 2 options ? > > > Well Jeff seemed to suggest that way, I do not have any preference, can > you please give me 2 letters to use ? > > Meanwhile I'll check rpc.statd as well. > > Simo. > FWIW, doesn't much matter to me... You just want some clear way to designate what behavior you want, and some way to tell whether it was specified at all (so you can disable the warning if it was). -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
