> Rick Macklem <rmack...@uoguelph.ca> writes: > > Well, another way it could be handled would be to put the sysctls > > and > > the global variables they manipulate in a module shared by both > > clients, > > like sys/nfs/nfs_lock.c (module "nfslock"). Then the same sysctl > > would > > affect both clients. (I hesitate to create "yet another" module just > > to share the sysctls, but since "nfslock" is used by both clients, > > it > > should work ok, I think.) > > I don't understand why you would want to do that. Can't you just > change > "oldnfs" back to "nfs" in the old stack? > > Hmm, it occurred to me that there is currently no way to tell the > kernel > that two drivers conflict with eachother. Perhaps I should take a shot > at implementing a DRIVER_CONFLICT macro to mirror DRIVER_DEPEND. > 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. rick ps: The issue you pointed out in the first post is just a line in /etc/rc.d/mountcritremote that needs to be fixed. It uses a module name of "nfs" and "nfsclient" when the new NFS is "nfs" and "nfscl" (the old one is "oldnfs" and "nfsclient"). That's easy to fix. I'm just waiting for a review. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"