Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So what is the use case for having a NFSv4 and NFSv4.1 mount of the > same filesystem? I agree we shouldn't crash, but I'm lost as to why > someone would want to do this. Note that one thing I'm thinking of adding to the mount overhaul is the ability for the VFS core to either upcall or open a config file to find default parameters for a new mount. This would make it easier to configure network and protocol parameters across automounts. > IOW: Why isn't the right thing to do here just to remove the bogus > BUG_ON()? Because it's not exactly bogus - or, rather, it should now be redundant with the upper layer (fscache) weeding out collisions between live cookies - but that will still throw a warning that you're getting a collision, say between an nfs-4.1 and a nfs-4.2 mount. The problem is that fscache isn't equipped to deal with handling multiple users of the same cache object and the cache coherence implications there of. I'm looking to change the former by changing the data I/O interface to take an iterator and stop it from tracking netfs pages beyond that, but managing cache coherence has to be up to the network filesystem. David -- 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
