On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 01:27:57PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24 2017, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > Hi Neil, > > > > On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 12:17 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 23 2017, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >> > >> > Instead of letting the kernel decide, default to enabling all > >> > versions, > >> > and let the user be more specifc in /etc/nfs.conf or on the command > >> > line. > >> > >> What is your rationale for this? > >> I think there is value in allowing the kernel to support a version > >> while > >> disabling it by default. This allows it to be used for > >> experimentation, > >> without much risk of it being used in production until it is deemed > >> to > >> be really ready. > > > > I think we can still do that by having the kernel simply not report > > that version. You'll note that -V4.x and -N4.x are allowed whether or > > not the kernel is reporting a version 'x' in /proc/fs/nfsd/versions. > > > > IOW: if you want to make the version not appear by default because it > > is unstable, then you probably don't want it to appear when the user > > does '+V4' either so you might as well hide it in > > /proc/fs/nfsd/versions too. > > That seems reasonable - possibly even better than the current approach, > though it is hard to be sure without actually trying it out for a while. > I haven't poured over the patches enough for a reviewed-by, but > Acked-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> It's too late to tell old kernels to hide experimental versions, though. And it's 4.1's experimental stage that's most likely to be a problem--though maybe that's getting long enough go that not too many people are bisecting back to that era of kernel. I dunno, I'm inclined to drop as long as this part isn't necessary to solve Trond's immediate problem. --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
