| Summary: | mount.nfs does not give failing option in error message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Jeremy Harris <jeharris> |
| Component: | nfs-utils | Assignee: | Steve Dickson <steved> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Yongcheng Yang <yoyang> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 7.0 | CC: | chunwang, eguan |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-04-08 15:45:59 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Jeremy Harris
2016-11-11 13:28:11 UTC
(In reply to Jeremy Harris from comment #0) Hi, Harris: [root@nfs ~]# mount -t nfs -v 10.73.4.163:/ /mnt/nfs_in/ -o addr=10.73.4.141,clientaddr=10.73.4.141 mount.nfs: timeout set for Sat Nov 12 00:27:16 2016 mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'clientaddr=10.73.4.141,vers=4,addr=10.73.4.163' [root@nfs ~]# mount -t nfs -v 10.73.4.163:/ /mnt/nfs_in/ -o addr=10.73.4.141,clientaddr=10.73.4.141,rr ^^^^^^^^^^^^ When I use a wrong option `rr` mount.nfs: timeout set for Sat Nov 12 00:27:53 2016 mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'clientaddr=10.73.4.141,rr,vers=4,addr=10.73.4.163' mount.nfs: mount(2): Invalid argument ^^^^^^^^^^^ It returns `Invalid argument` due to the `rr` mount.nfs: an incorrect mount option was specified (In reply to ChunYu Wang from comment #1) With the last comment, this is not a bug, but it will be helpful, if the mount returns the wrong argument. (In reply to ChunYu Wang from comment #2) > (In reply to ChunYu Wang from comment #1) > > With the last comment, this is not a bug, but it will be helpful, if the > mount returns the wrong argument. If a patch appears upstream to take care of this problem that would be good and we can open this back up... but for now I'm going to close this as not a bug Perhaps we need a "requires upstream fix" reason for closure, since "not a bug" is manifestly incorrect? (In reply to Jeremy Harris from comment #5) > Perhaps we need a "requires upstream fix" reason for closure, since "not a > bug" > is manifestly incorrect? Yes, it would make sense to use that type of reason, if it existed ;-) |