On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:48:20 -0500 Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:32:54 -0500 > > Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Yes, IIRC the apple guys mentioned plausible server scenarios for this > >> (where we want to mount with unix extensions for symlinks and ownership > >> but server can not handle posix path names) > >> > >> Presumably if the server file system does not support posix path names > >> (FAT32, NTFS?) or if we want to restrict the characters (for interoperability > >> with Windows clients accessing the same share?) - might be other cases. > >> > > > > In that case though, shouldn't those servers just not set > > CIFS_UNIX_POSIX_PATHNAMES_CAP ? > > I don't think servers do that (unset the POSIX_PATHNAMES CAP for one > share and not others, even assuming the share exports all volumes > of the same file system type) for the former case > (unless they cant support posix path at all for the whole server), > and for the latter case, not sure that the server can know enough > information (about other clients which may mount the system) > to unset the CAP unilaterally. > This explanation doesn't make any sense. IIUC, The server should only set the flag if it's appropriate to use posix-style pathnames on the share. Why should the server care at all what the clients can support? Perhaps I should phrase this question differently: Under what circumstances would someone want to use the "noposixpaths" mount option? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
