From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 23 22:37:14 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8987106564A
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:37:14 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A834914DF79;
	Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:37:13 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4F1DE118.80201@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:37:12 -0800
From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
	rv:9.0) Gecko/20120119 Thunderbird/9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
References: <700804423.708964.1327280006066.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
In-Reply-To: <700804423.708964.1327280006066.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: should mount -u fail or silently ignore options?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:37:14 -0000

On 01/22/2012 16:53, Rick Macklem wrote:
> However, my question is...
> - Should the "mount -u" fail and return an error
> OR
>   Silently ignore the "udp" option and return ok.
> 
> I ask because the NFS clients currently silently
> clear flags like NFSMNT_NFSV3 and NFSMNT_NOLOCKD
> because they can't be changed and then nfs_mount()
> returns 0, assuming any other options work.

My preference would be that no command silently do something other than
what was asked for. Otherwise the operator may be relying on certain
behavior that was requested, but not fulfilled.


Doug

-- 

	It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short.

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/