Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:47:13 -0800 From: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: should mount -u fail or silently ignore options? Message-ID: <20120123224713.GA93292@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <4F1DE118.80201@FreeBSD.org> References: <700804423.708964.1327280006066.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> <4F1DE118.80201@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 02:37:12PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > 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. +1 Doug's recommendation. (I've been trying to write up an explanation of my preference but was too verbose; Doug's fits what I was trying to say perfectly) -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, US | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120123224713.GA93292>