svn commit: r221124 - in head: . sbin/mount sbin/mount_nfs sys/amd64/conf sys/fs/nfsclient sys/i386/conf sys/ia64/conf sys/nfsclient sys/pc98/conf sys/powerpc/conf sys/sparc64/conf sys/sun4v/conf

[Pawel Jakub Dawidek]

On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 07:06:46PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Also, except for the SYSCTL() naming issue they don't comflict. At the
> moment it is perfectly ok to use both for mounts concurrently.
> For example, you could have the following 2 lines in your /etc/fstab:
> 
> nfs-server:/sub1    /mnt    nfs    rw      0    0
> nfs-server:/sub2    /mnt2   oldnfs rw      0    0
> 
> I don't know why you would actually choose to do this, unless you found
> that the old NFS client did something that worked better for "/sub2" for
> your purposes, but it will work fine.

My personal opinion is that supporting such configuration is not worth
the efforts and actually I'd prefer to use the same sysctl tree
(vfs.nfs.*) and the same fstype (nfs) in both clients. User would decide
which to use by loading one kernel module or the other.

-- 
Pawel Jakub Dawidek                       http://www.wheelsystems.com
FreeBSD committer                         http://www.FreeBSD.org
Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!                     http://yomoli.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/attachments/20110506/2a61d895/attachment.pgp