2011/10/5 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:09:36AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: >> I'm not a fan of adding more mount-option enabled hacks to cifs to >> support wine. If wine or other applications need windows semantics, >> then I would prefer to see you add proper vfs-level interfaces to >> provide them. > > Agreed. A mount option that changes semantics in subtle ways will cause > applications to fail in sutble and unpredictable ways when it's set > wrong. And doesn't have any hope of handling the case of a mixture of > POSIX and Windows applications on the same filesystem. > > Whereas a new interface, when it's unavailable, will cause a clean > predictable failure right at the start, allowing the application to give > a helpful error message, or fall back on different behavior if it > chooses to. > > Also, before building anything more on top of Linux mandatory locking, > somebody should really fix the existing bugs--the current implementation > has races. > > --b. > Ok, I will think about how to do this kind of things better. So, I will send my locking patchset without unlock behavior change. -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky. -- 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
