On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Weston Andros Adamson wrote: > > > On Nov 11, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I will update mount.nfs so the default version is 4.1. I have two quick > > questions on desired behavior: > > > > o Should mounts that do not specify a minor version be upgraded to the default minor version? > > > > For example, should 'mount -overs=4' turn into 'mount -overs4.1', if the > > current default is 4.1? > > No. We don’t want to change the minor version of mounts in users’ fstabs. The lack of a minor > version in mount options has always meant minor version 0. > > What you’re talking about is making the default (i.e. when no version is specified) to be v4.1, > right? I think we definitely want to auto retry in this case, i.e. try v4.1, then v4.0, then v3. Correct. When no version is specified, it will be v4.1, and we'll auto-retry. You are correct - my question is what do do when a major version is specified, but not a minor version. You're firmly on the side that lack of a minor version means use '0' for a minor version. The reason I ask: most would say if you're going to use v4, use v4.1. I want to know if we want that general opinion reflected in the behavior of mount choosing the current "best" minor version. Ben > > -dros > > > > > > > o If 'yes' to the above, should mount auto-retry decrementing minor > > versions if EPROTONOSUPPORT? > > > > For example, 'mount -overs=4' with a default of 4.2 would attempt: 4.2, > > then 4.1, then 4.0. > > > > Ben > > -- > > 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 > >
