Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>