From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 23 22:47:16 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54FF91065672 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:47:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.dyndns.org) Received: from qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F065B8FC14 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:47:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id RABN1i0041wpRvQ54AnG4t; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:47:16 +0000 Received: from koitsu.dyndns.org ([67.180.84.87]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id RAnF1i0091t3BNj3eAnFwF; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:47:16 +0000 Received: by icarus.home.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C09B4102C19; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:47:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:47:13 -0800 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20120123224713.GA93292@icarus.home.lan> References: <700804423.708964.1327280006066.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> <4F1DE118.80201@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F1DE118.80201@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:47:16 -0000 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 |