On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 19:04 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > > 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. > That's not how I read this proposal: > Do you still want us to keep this approach, or will you accept a mount > option as: > - first mount in a namespace sets the identifier > - subsequent mounts with conflicting identifiers return an error Which is why I responded as I did. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
