lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: knfsd and FS_REQUIRES_DEV
On Tuesday December 11, sopwith@redhat.com wrote:
> I'm not worried about problems where files mysteriously disappear due to
> me screwing up inode numbers in my code, only about causing kernel panics
> or other Bad Things in the server's kernel. If I were to remove the
> FS_REQUIRES_DEV check (or, more likely, submit a patch adding an nfsd
> module option to remove the check...), what are the worst things that
> could theoretically and realistically happen?

If you just removed the check, the worst that would happen is that
after a server reboot you have to remount everything on your clients.

If you submit a patch to make it an option, the worst that can happen
is that I jump on you (but I'm not a good long jumper, so you are
pretty safe).

I plan to make a change to knfsd in the near future so that you can
have an option like:
fs=27
in /etc/exports and the the kernel puts the magic number "27" in the
filehandle instead of the device number. Then as long as you export
each filesystem with a unique and consistant fs number, you won't need
to worry about the instability of device numbers.

NeilBrown
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:14    [W:0.045 / U:1.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site