From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Jan 24 20:38:41 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from c014.sfo.cp.net (c014-h024.c014.sfo.cp.net [209.228.12.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98C4937B400 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:38:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (cpmta 4814 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 19:45:29 -0800 Received: from d8c81e5f.dsl.flashcom.net (HELO quadrajet.flashcom.com) (216.200.30.95) by smtp.flashcom.net (209.228.12.88) with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 19:45:29 -0800 X-Sent: 25 Jan 2001 03:45:29 GMT Received: (from guy@localhost) by quadrajet.flashcom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00437; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:45:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gharris) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:45:28 -0800 From: Guy Harris To: Matthias Andree Cc: Guy Harris , Mike Smith , Matthias Andree , Linux NFS mailing list , FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: [NFS] Incompatible: FreeBSD 4.2 client, Linux 2.2.18 nfsv3 server, read-only export Message-ID: <20010124194528.B345@quadrajet.flashcom.com> References: <20010124001701.F344@quadrajet.flashcom.com> <200101241104.f0OB4sS10071@mass.dis.org> <20010124101007.A344@quadrajet.flashcom.com> <20010125011111.A12526@emma1.emma.line.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <20010125011111.A12526@emma1.emma.line.org>; from matthias.andree@stud.uni-dortmund.de on Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:11:12AM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:11:12AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: > > 2.4.0, which is definitely not an ancient release, still appears, from > > looking at the code in question, to have that buggy behavior. > > There has been a mail on the Linux-kernel mailing list claiming > otherwise, I haven't tested it. I must've been looking at the wrong source tree or something (either one of the 2.2.x trees, or maybe one of the 2.4.0-testX trees, although I think the tree I had before I grabbed 2.4.0 was 2.4.0-test11, which also has the fix) - 2.4.0 does treat nfserr_rofs the same way it treats nfserr_acces or nfserr_perm, so it shouldn't have the problem. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message