[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121206213133.GB4821@thunk.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:31:33 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add O_DENY* flags to fcntl and cifs
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:57:52AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>
> And this is where things get really ugly of course :-).
>
> For the CIFSFS client they're expecting to be able to
> just ship them to a Windows server, where they'll
> get the (insane) Windows semantics. These semantics
> are not what would be wanted on a local filesystem.
I'm confused; why would a userspace application need to be able to
request this behavior? I can understand why an SMB client might
depend on this so it can use Windows' insane cache coherency scheme.
Are you trying to let Samba act as a middle man, where a remote file
system is mounted on Linux, and then Samba will try to act as a SMB
server, so you want to be able to pass through these semantics, i.e.:
Windows SMB Server <---> Linux cifs remote file system <--->
Linux Samba server <---> Windows SMB client
Is this somewhat contrivuewd example the intended use case? Or
something else?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists