On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 07:30:38AM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > "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: > > > > > 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. Sorry, I don't understand exactly what your concern is. --b. -- 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
