On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply, but I'm not clear what you mean: should p9p's
> mount check the kernel version? or are you talking about 9mount?
>
Whatever function deals with passing the options to the mount system
call needs the modification. The few changes that are there may be
fixed by me doing a better job and supporting old names for options,
but it won't help for the kernels already in circulation.
> By the way, where can one find the git tree with the latest v9fs? I
> was googling and struggling with the swik 'thing' (words fail me...),
> but couldn't find it, I know it is somewhere...
The "latest" is in linus' head branch on kernel.org.
The current development stream is in
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ericvh/v9fs.git in the
v9fs-devel branch.
However, (because I am difficult) I have been reorganizing the code
base somewhat after my experiences with implementing the virtio
transport. That code is still in-progress and is in the reorg branch
of the v9fs git tree. My intention is to wrap that reorganization up
and get it out for review in the next week or so.
-eric
> Also any other feedback on what changes and improvements 9mount might
> need before it can be made part of p9p (or maybe shipped with the
> standard linux mount(1) tools?).
I'll take a look today so I'm up to date on the current station and
let you know. Basically it will probably be best to structure it as a
"mount helper" and ship it in its own package. IIRC all the other
mount helpers (with the possible exception of NFS) ship independently.
Thanks for doing this by the way, we've need a mount helper for some
time to help smooth out some of the bumps.
-eric
