Re: [PATCH] knfsd: Fix stale file handle problem with subtree_checking.

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:29:33PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> The first step would be to stop it from being the default (as Trond
> has suggested a number of times :-)
> 
> How about this.
>  I release a 1.0.10 shortly which addresses some 'portlist' related
>  breakage and prints a nasty warning if you have neither subtree_check
>  or no_subtree_check, but still defaults to subtree_check.
> 
>  Then the next release will be 1.1.0 which prints the same warning,
>  but defaults the other way - and probably removed the warning if you
>  include neither sync not async.
> 
> That should at least get subtree_check to be used less.

Sounds good to me.  (Though for these kinds of changes I suppose it's
the time elasped that matters more than the number of released
versions--people probably upgrade every x months/years/whatever rather
than every x versions.  By that criteria I think we might be making the
subtree_check change a little fast, while the warning period for the
sync change may already be overkill....)

> I think it is a great idea for a 'filesystem' to support multiple
> independent file-trees within the one storage set, which is roughly
> what you are saying I think (though probably not quite).
> 
> However I suspect that most people don't actually want subtrees.  They
> just get it as the default.  It isn't something that I would have
> implemented if I hadn't inherited the requirement, and no other OS
> that I know of provides that particular semantic.

Could be.

--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/