From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 30 20:37:03 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CA81065670 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:37:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A053B8FC12 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:37:03 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAOHNP1CDaFvO/2dsb2JhbABCAw6FdrYTgiABAQUjVhsOCgICDRkCWQYTiA2pHZJ1gSGNH4IPgRIDlVeQGYIpVg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,342,1344225600"; d="scan'208";a="179666609" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-annu-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 30 Aug 2012 16:36:56 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB73BB402C; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:36:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Tim Gustafson Message-ID: <380236740.1347711.1346359016755.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.202] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using AMD with NFS Mounts 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: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:37:04 -0000 Tim Gustafson wrote: > > Although I'd see it as an option initially, planning on supporting > > both > > "forever" would just result in bloat and yet more software to try > > and > > maintain, imho. (Theoretical comment, at least until a solid autofs > > port > > exists.) > > I don't see that as a valid argument against adding an autofs port. > Should we drop the port for Exim or Postgres, because ports for > Sendmail and mySQL exist? > The problem with something that goes in the kernel and uses the VFS/VOP interface is that it easily "bit rots" if it isn't in src/sys and being maintained by someone. (Note the file systems that aren't MP safe or don't work well that currently live within src/sys. Some will go away soon if the aren't made MP safe by someone.) I think you'd find that an autofs port (not necessarily in "ports") would suffer the same fate. (I'm honestly surprised that amd keeps working, since no one really maintains it. I mentioned that it is the last use of the old mount(2) syscall for NFS mounts. I know because I broke the backwards compatibility for mount(2) and amd got broken by that;-) However, I agree it isn't a reason for not having a port of it. I'd just rather see it replace amd, because it is old code I don't know how to maintain. This is similar to mountd.c. I am about to look at a couple of patches for mountd.c, but I hate doing this, because is it really old hard to read code. Lots of people complain about the lack of atomic export updates, but replacing mountd with nfse doesn't seem to be in the cards because it isn't absolutely 100% (including the bugs) compatible with mountd. (It seems mountd will exist "forever" unless someone implements a 100% compatible replacement and it will only get harder to maintain. If you don't believe me, take a look at mountd.c.:-) rick > -- > > Tim Gustafson > tjg@soe.ucsc.edu > 831-459-5354 > Baskin Engineering, Room 313A