On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:08:27AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 12:19:33PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > >> So, what's the probability that there are clients out there that started > >> talking to a 2.2-based knfsd and will now want to talk to a modern 4.13 > >> kernel seventeen years later? > > > > I think it's unlikely enough that we could drop that code; Wow, that was a terrible sentence. What I meant was: I think it's unlikely that such a client exists, therefore I'm OK with dropping that code. Anyway: > cc'ing Neil > > in case we overlooked anything. > > While I remain a fan of maintaining forward/backward compatibility as > much as possible, 15 years is probably more than I can realistically > hope for. > As you say, a generation number of '0' is only special when old-style > file handles are used, with the "subtree_check" export option. They are > unlikely to have been used recently. ... > But for the main point of your question: I see no problem with removing > nfs_fhbase_old and related code, and that includes the special handling > of generation number zero. So, we agree, OK. I dunno if this is actually urgent. But it'd be nice to clean out. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
