[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-fsdevel
Subject:    Re: [patch 4/8] nfsd: rename MAY_ flags
From:       "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields () fieldses ! org>
Date:       2008-05-30 20:12:17
Message-ID: 20080530201217.GD18154 () fieldses ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:07:53AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > don't think it does, but I'm interested in the nfsd maintainers'
> > > > opinions.
> > > 
> > > This isn't something I've ever had a reason to care about.  What are you
> > > trying to fix exactly?
> > 
> > The NFS MAY_ flags operate in the same name and number space and we'd
> > easily get collisions when someone adds new MAY_ flags which miklos
> > as well as at least two other independent efforts want to do.  To sort
> > this out we'd either defined the nfsd MAY_ flags in fs.h to make it
> > obvious we should not double-allocates bits or names, or use a different
> > name and number space for the nfsd flags.  The first would be rather
> > trivial but also ugly, the seconds sound much better but is a little
> > more effort.  Just defined NFSD_MAY_ and use it everywhere and do a
> > little translation inside nfsd_permission before passing it on to
> > permission().
> 
> Yeah, I wouldn't mind that.  Although I'd still define NFSD_MAY_EXEC,
> NFSD_MAY_READ and NFSD_MAY_WRITE to be exactly the same as MAY_EXEC,
> etc..., and have the translation actually just mask off the rest of
> the bits (as it does currently).

OK by me.

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]