I apologize for missing an important part of the patch in my original submission which caused the NFSv4 regression that you are experiencing. If I'd know that Canonical wasn't going to do quality assurance of kernel patches to their stable release branch (despite my warning that I'd only tested NFSv3 clients) I would have tested the NFSv4 portion of the code myself.
After seeing this report, I set up an NFSv4 server to test, reproduce and fix the problem with my patch. NFSv4 and NFSv4 + Kerberos mounts are now working with the revised patch (attached). Note: this patch applies to the 2.6.22-14.46 kernel. I will attach a patch to 2.6.22-14.47 that fixes this regression momentarily.
Claude,
I apologize for missing an important part of the patch in my original submission which caused the NFSv4 regression that you are experiencing. If I'd know that Canonical wasn't going to do quality assurance of kernel patches to their stable release branch (despite my warning that I'd only tested NFSv3 clients) I would have tested the NFSv4 portion of the code myself.
After seeing this report, I set up an NFSv4 server to test, reproduce and fix the problem with my patch. NFSv4 and NFSv4 + Kerberos mounts are now working with the revised patch (attached). Note: this patch applies to the 2.6.22-14.46 kernel. I will attach a patch to 2.6.22-14.47 that fixes this regression momentarily.
Thanks,
Philip