On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 21:16 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 08:39:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Something like this patch maybe? Builds but is otherwise untested. It > > might not DTRT though in the (nonsensical) case where you have a server > > that is listening on UDP but doesn't support v2 or v3. Not sure I > > really care about that too much. > > I don't think this is worth the trouble. > > A client that attempts to mount NFSv4 over UDP is operating out of spec, > and we don't owe them much. > > I'm not even convinced that transport-specific high/low version returns > are correct. A client could in theory be configured to prefer UDP and > NFSv3, but to fall back to NFSv4 and TCP if NFSv3 was unavailable, and > this would break that. That would be legal but admittedly odd client > behavior. > That's fine with me. My rationale here was that we have to treat each listening socket as a different "remote", in RPC parlance, since not all versions are supported on all socket types. Again though, the version info reported here is pretty useless. > If somebody actually hits a case where this patch would help, then let's > reconsider. > Fine by me. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
