"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 2013/12/17 04:38:49: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:24:03PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 2013/12/16 21:23:45: > > > > > From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > To: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, > > > Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, steved@xxxxxxxxxx > > > Date: 2013/12/16 21:23 > > > Subject: Re: nfs-utils-1.2.9 does not play well with linux 3.10.x > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:21:15PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 2013/12/16 21:03:01: > > > > > > > > > From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > To: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, > > > > > Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, steved@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > > Date: 2013/12/16 21:03 > > > > > Subject: Re: nfs-utils-1.2.9 does not play well with linux 3.10.x > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 01:54:19PM -0500, bfields wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 07:16:00PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > > > > rpc.nfsd insists on adding "-4.2" when writing > > > > /proc/fs/nfsd/versions : > > > > > > > rpc.nfsd: Writing version string to kernel: +4.1 -4.2 -2 +3 +4 > > > > > > > Which causes Linux to return an EIVAL error as 3.10 has no > > support > > > > for 4.2 > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > does not accept any reference to 4.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems reasonable to me that Linux should accpect -4.2 as a > > noop > > > > and > > > > > > > continue > > > > > > > processing the rest of the options but I am just guessing. > > > > > > > Anyhow, just to test I applied this commit to my 3.10.24 kernel: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=4bdc33ed5bd9fbaa243bda6fdccb22674aed6305 > > > > > > > > > > > > > and now it accepts the "-4.2" but I have no idea if this messes > > up > > > > > > > something else. > > > > > > > > > > > > That should be perfectly safe. > > > > > > > > Thanks, I will keep this then until nfs-utils is working. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that we should teach the kernel to treat "-4.x" at least > > as a > > > > > > no-op for unknown .x. But nfs-utils also has to keep working with > > > > > > older > > > > > > kernels which don't do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem was introduced by > > 12a590f8d556c00a9502eeebaa763d906222d521 > > > > > > "rpc.nfsd: Allow v4.2 server support with the -V option". That > > should > > > > > > be using an array of ints not a bit array, so it can make the > > > > > > distinction between "off", "on", and "don't care". > > > > > > > > > > So, something like this (untested).--b. > > > > > > > > I tested this on my system(which has the above kernel patch) and I > > noticed > > > > a difference: > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > rpc.nfsd: Writing version string to kernel: -2 +3 +4 > > > > which is different than previous > > > > rpc.nfsd: Writing version string to kernel: +4.1 -4.2 -2 +3 +4 > > > > > > > > The "+4.1" is missing. > > > > > > Yes, that's intentional. Is it causing you any problem? > > > > I don't know yet, but I don't think it would be a problem for me. > > However, are you not changing the defaults here? In that > > case someone else relying on 4.1 might have a problem I guess. > > That's just restoring the behavior we had before > 12a590f8d556c00a9502eeebaa763d906222d521, and will still result in 4.1 > being turned on if the kernel is recent enough. What is an recent enough kernel? Does not 3.10.24 patched with the patch I mentioned earlier? I thought it would make 3.10 look like a 3.11 which have 4.2 supported. If I am mistaken we good I guess. Jocke -- 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
