lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] nfs-utils: mount: really return from errno test


    On 10/13/2011 01:54 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
    >
    > On Oct 13, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
    >
    >> Looking further into this issue, I noticed all the following
    >> mounts were successful.
    >>
    >> # mount -o v3 localhost:/home /mnt/home
    >> # mount -o v4 localhost:/home /mnt/home
    >
    > Does this actually change the NFS version in use for /mnt/home, or does the client recognize that this is the same server and export as an existing mount point, and share the cache and mount options?
    Using wireshark, I verified that the version does indeed change...

    >
    > If the mount options are the same, this is equivalent to
    >
    > # mount -o v3 localhost:/home /mnt/home
    > # mount -o v3 localhost:/home /mnt/home
    In this case the second mount does fail with EBUSY..

    steved.
    >
    > And both mount requests should succeed.
    >
    >> # mount -o v4 [fec0::2:5652:ff:fe20:8459]:/home /mnt/home
    >> # mount -o v3 [fec0::2:5652:ff:fe20:8459]:/home /mnt/home
    >>
    >> which the mount point, /mnt/home is mounted 4 different times
    >> to the same server.
    >
    > Assuming localhost is fec0::2:5652:ff:fe20:8459, this test allows you to mount the same server by an IPv4 and an IPv6 address onto the same local directory. Why then does 744657's test case fail?
    >
    >> Is by design or a real problem?
    >> steved.
    >>
    >>
    >> On 10/13/2011 12:34 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
    >>> Yeah... I believe its this one
    >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744657
    >>>
    >>> On 10/13/2011 10:53 AM, Chuck Lever wrote:
    >>>> What was the presenting problem? Is there a bugzilla report I can look at?
    >>>>
    >>>> On Oct 11, 2011, at 5:44 AM, Hamo wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> We should only try next address family if we meet ECONNREFUSED or EHOSTUNREACH
    >>>>> for v4 or ECONNREFUSED or EOPNOTSUPP or EHOSTUNREACH for v3v2.
    >>>>> Before, only a break in swich can not make the program out of for loop.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Bai <hamo.by@gmail.com>
    >>>>> ---
    >>>>> utils/mount/stropts.c | 6 ++++--
    >>>>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> diff --git a/utils/mount/stropts.c b/utils/mount/stropts.c
    >>>>> index 314a806..4032bf3 100644
    >>>>> --- a/utils/mount/stropts.c
    >>>>> +++ b/utils/mount/stropts.c
    >>>>> @@ -665,9 +665,10 @@ static int nfs_try_mount_v3v2(struct nfsmount_info *mi)
    >>>>> case EHOSTUNREACH:
    >>>>> continue;
    >>>>> default:
    >>>>> - break;
    >>>>> + goto out;
    >>>>> }
    >>>>> }
    >>>>> +out:
    >>>>> return ret;
    >>>>> }
    >>>>>
    >>>>> @@ -751,9 +752,10 @@ static int nfs_try_mount_v4(struct nfsmount_info *mi)
    >>>>> case EHOSTUNREACH:
    >>>>> continue;
    >>>>> default:
    >>>>> - break;
    >>>>> + goto out;
    >>>>> }
    >>>>> }
    >>>>> +out:
    >>>>> return ret;
    >>>>> }
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> 1.7.1
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
    >>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    >>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    >>>>
    >>> --
    >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    >>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
    >


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-13 21:05    [W:0.029 / U:0.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site