On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 09:45:38AM +0200, Guillaume Gardet wrote: > > > Le 23/06/2016 21:08, Tom Rini a écrit : > >On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:10:26AM +0200, Guillaume GARDET wrote: > > > >>This patch enables NFSv3 support. > >>If NFSv2 is available use it as usual. > >>If NFSv2 is not available, but NFSv3 is available, use NFSv3. > >>If NFSv2 and NFSv3 are not available, print an error message since NFSv4 is > >>not supported. > >> > >>Tested on iMX6 sabrelite with 4 Linux NFS servers: > >> * NFSv2 + NFSv3 + NFSv4 server: use NFSv2 protocol > >> * NFSv2 + NFSv3 server: use NFSv3 protocol > >> * NFSv3 + NFSv4 server: use NFSv3 protocol > >> * NFSv3 server: use NFSv3 protocol > >So, why do we have v2+v3+v4 -> v2 and not v2+v3+v4 -> v3, when we do > >v2+v3 -> v3 and v3+v4 -> v3 ? We should be consistent in preferring > >either v2 over v3 or v3 over v2. Thanks! > > > > Sorry, it is a typo error. Please read: "NFSv2 + NFSv3 server: use NFSv2 > protocol". > > As long as NFSv2 is available, we use it. Otherwise, we use v3 if > available. As explained above.
OK, that makes sense, thanks! Joe, I assume you can just fix that in the commit message when you pick this up. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
