> On Feb 28, 2022, at 12:24 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Attempts to work toward solutions in this area seem to be ignored, >> the >> questions still stand. Until we can sort out and agree on a >> direction, >> self-NACK to this patch. > > A new mount option doesn't solve any problems that we can't solve with > the existing framework. I don't think a mount option was proposed. Rather, the mechanics of the udev rule would be done by mount.nfs without any changes to the administrative interface. -- Chuck Lever
