On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> wrote:
> Well, you're right about one thing - the comment there says that it should
> just return EINVAL for nfs v2 - and I think it should - but that code returns
> EINVAL for v3 - and that's wrong. We have server side support for this in v3
> and what we should probably be doing is actually doing the rpc call to the v3
> server in the v3 case and returning what it returns -
Sure, though nfsv3's pathconf call only supports a small subset of
pathconf() values:
struct nfsv3_pathconf {
u_int32_t pc_linkmax;
u_int32_t pc_namemax;
u_int32_t pc_notrunc;
u_int32_t pc_chownrestricted;
u_int32_t pc_caseinsensitive;
u_int32_t pc_casepreserving;
};
> and doing EINVAL in the v2 case.
I'm with tedu and Theo on this: giving best guess answers will provide
a better result than returning EINVAL.
Philip Guenther
