On 09/07/2012 02:08, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Vincent Hoffman:
>> On 08/07/2012 00:26, Rick Macklem wrote:
>>> Vincent Hoffman wrote:
Hi Rick,
I'm afraid this didnt make any real difference for me.
Since I couldnt test it on the live system I tried it on a test vm.
on the vm (
This message contains only corrections to typos from my previous message.
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 12:44:56PM +0300, Andrey Simonenko wrote:
>
> Here -alldirs means that /cdrom should be a file system. As I remember
> this even worked before revision 1.85 of mountd/mountd.c, then mountd.c
> began
On 09/07/2012 02:08, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Vincent Hoffman:
>> On 08/07/2012 00:26, Rick Macklem wrote:
>>> Vincent Hoffman wrote:
Hi Rick,
I'm afraid this didnt make any real difference for me.
Since I couldnt test it on the live system I tried it on a test vm.
on the vm (
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 07:48:11PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> > Replying to myself just as a record, I have tried nfse and I didnt get
> > the permission denied at all.
> > The only issue I had with it is that it strictly adheres to the syntax
> > in exports(5) while mountd is a little more fle
Hello again,
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 06:35:50PM +0100, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> Replying to myself just as a record, I have tried nfse and I didnt get
> the permission denied at all.
> The only issue I had with it is that it strictly adheres to the syntax
> in exports(5) while mountd is a little m
Vincent Hoffman:
> On 08/07/2012 00:26, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Rick,
> >>
> >> I'm afraid this didnt make any real difference for me.
> >> Since I couldnt test it on the live system I tried it on a test vm.
> >> on the vm (nfs server) I set a looping mount/umoun
Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 07/07/2012 13:26, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> > On 01/07/2012 12:18, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >> Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> >>> On 01/07/2012 01:53, Rick Macklem wrote:
> To modify mountd to use the kernel changes is more work than I
> have
> time for, in part bec
On 07/07/2012 13:26, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 01/07/2012 12:18, Rick Macklem wrote:
>> Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2012 01:53, Rick Macklem wrote:
To modify mountd to use the kernel changes is more work than I have
time for, in part because mountd.c is a very ugly old piece of
On 08/07/2012 00:26, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rick,
>>
>> I'm afraid this didnt make any real difference for me.
>> Since I couldnt test it on the live system I tried it on a test vm.
>> on the vm (nfs server) I set a looping mount/umount
>> while true ; do mount /dev/m
Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 01/07/2012 12:18, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> >> On 01/07/2012 01:53, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >>> To modify mountd to use the kernel changes is more work than I
> >>> have
> >>> time for, in part because mountd.c is a very ugly old piece of C
> >>> cod
On 01/07/2012 12:18, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>> On 01/07/2012 01:53, Rick Macklem wrote:
>>> To modify mountd to use the kernel changes is more work than I have
>>> time for, in part because mountd.c is a very ugly old piece of C
>>> code, imho.
>>>
>>> I do have a patch that
On 02/07/2012 13:05, Andrey Simonenko wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:13:30PM +0100, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>> On 01/07/2012 01:53, Rick Macklem wrote:
>>> I haven't looked at Andrey's patch, but conceptually it sounds like
>>> the best approach. As I understand it, the problem with replacing
>
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:13:30PM +0100, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 01/07/2012 01:53, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >>>
> > I haven't looked at Andrey's patch, but conceptually it sounds like
> > the best approach. As I understand it, the problem with replacing
> > mountd with nfse (at least in the FreeB
Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 01/07/2012 01:53, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> >> Just a note to say I have tested this on -CURRENT with the new nfs
> >> server and it is still the case.
> >>
> >> On the client (FreeBSD seaurchin 8.3-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD
> >> 8.3-RELEASE-p3
> >> #0: T
On 01/07/2012 01:53, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>> Just a note to say I have tested this on -CURRENT with the new nfs
>> server and it is still the case.
>>
>> On the client (FreeBSD seaurchin 8.3-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3
>> #0: Tue Jun 12 00:39:29 UTC 2012
>> r...@amd64-
Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> Just a note to say I have tested this on -CURRENT with the new nfs
> server and it is still the case.
>
> On the client (FreeBSD seaurchin 8.3-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3
> #0: Tue Jun 12 00:39:29 UTC 2012
> r...@amd64-builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GEN
Just a note to say I have tested this on -CURRENT with the new nfs
server and it is still the case.
On the client (FreeBSD seaurchin 8.3-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3
#0: Tue Jun 12 00:39:29 UTC 2012
r...@amd64-builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64)
[root@seaurchin /
17 matches
Mail list logo
