Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:16:33 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] knfsd: Fix stale file handle problem with subtree_checking. | From | "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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |