Re: which way to update export_args structure?

> On Oct 22, 2018, at 09:49, Josh Paetzel <josh_at_tcbug.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brooks Davis wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> This is the direction I'd been thinking.  FWIW, the usecase is more that
>> once you've moved away from the struct it's easy to make incremental
>> changes then to use a 32-bit mountd on a 64-bit kernel.  Moving toward
>> size-independent interfaces helps both causes though.
>> 
>> -- Brooks
>> Email had 1 attachment:
>> + signature.asc
>>  1k (application/pgp-signature)
> 
> 
> Brooks,
> 
> What is the benefit or usecase for running a 32 bit mountd on a 64 bit kernel?

There generally isn’t a case for doing this, but running a 32-bit mountd in a 32-bit chroot can allow someone with a working 32-bit environment at a company (for instance) to rebuild environments which rely on NFS mounts and the like.

This is an esoteric usecase, but I’ve seen it used before (and I’ve used it myself ;)..).

I don’t think this niche usecase should hinder forward progress in terms of modernizing the base OS though. Biarch usecases are diminishing over time.

-Enji