Re: [PATCH 0/5] nfs-utils: Improving NFS re-exports

[Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>]

> On May 23, 2022, at 3:53 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>> Von: "bfields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
>>> The whole set of features is currently opt-in via --enable-reexport.
>> 
>> Can we remove that option before upstreaming?
> 
> What is the final resolution regarding this option?
> I can think of embedded/memory constraint systems where the dependency on SQLite
> is not wanted.
> 
> On the other hand, with my latest patch, the plugin interface, the could be solved
> too.
> 
>> For testing purposes it may makes sense to be able to turn the new code
>> on and off quickly.  But for something we're really going to support,
>> it's just another hurdle for users to jump through, and another case we
>> probably won't remember to test.  The export options themselves should
>> be enough configuration.
>> 
>> Anyway, basically sounds reasonable to me.  I'll try to give it a proper
>> review sometime, feel free to bug me if I don't get to it in a week or
>> so.
> 
> *kind ping* :-)
> 
> Please also don't forget the kernel side of this work. It is small but still needed.
> See: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20220110184419.27665-1-richard@nod.at/
> or
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rw/misc.git/log/?h=nfs_reexport_clean

In his review comments, Bruce asked if testing with NFSv4 has been done.

Also, can an idle client allow the re-export server to unmount an
automounted export?

Once you have NFSv4 results, the kernel patches need to be posted again
with Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org and autofs@vger.kernel.org


> Since the kernel changes don't change the ABI, it should not really matter which part
> is merged first. Kernel or userspace. The only important part is stating the right
> kernel version in the nfs-utils manpages.
> 
> Thanks,
> //richard

--
Chuck Lever