From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265022AbTIDO2C (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:28:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265034AbTIDO2C (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:28:02 -0400 Received: from mail3-126.ewetel.de ([212.6.122.126]:58338 "EHLO mail3.ewetel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265022AbTIDO1E (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:27:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:27:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Pascal Schmidt To: Trond Myklebust cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [NFS] attempt to use V1 mount protocol on V3 server In-Reply-To: <16214.49538.216630.336724@charged.uio.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-CheckCompat: OK Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Trond Myklebust wrote: > Most are not. An NFSv3 filehandle has a variable size (as opposed to > NFSv2 which are fixed size), and so most NFS servers use the same > filehandle for NFSv2 and NFSv3. Well, my filehandles are all 64 bytes at the moment. Doesn't matter anyway since my nfsd does not handle NFSv2. > Note: The fact that we are now stuck with a schizophrenic NFSv3 client > is one of the many reasons why I am now *very* wary of trying to work > around server bugs by making fixes to the client code. Fine with me if a buggy server results in a failure to mount. However, I was seeing crashes. -- Ciao, Pascal