2012/7/2 Pawel Dziepak <pdziepak@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > I guess the problem is with "fh". NFSv4 specification [1] uses "fh" as > an abbreviation for "filehandle" very commonly (operations like PUTFH, > GETFH, data type nfs_fh4, etc) and that's why I also use that name. If > it is a problem I can change that argument name, but I don't really > think that "fh" in the implementation of a NFSv4 client is not > meaningful enough. A word count on "filehandle" in the specification gives 317 vs 150 for the word fh. Skimming over the document, "filehandle" seems more adequate to me. Bye, Jérôme