On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:48:17 +0400
Pavel Shilovsky <pshilovsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
> @@ -385,9 +385,8 @@ int cifs_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> oplock = 0;
>
> if (!tcon->broken_posix_open && tcon->unix_ext &&
> - (tcon->ses->capabilities & CAP_UNIX) &&
> - (CIFS_UNIX_POSIX_PATH_OPS_CAP &
> - le64_to_cpu(tcon->fsUnixInfo.Capability))) {
> + cap_unix(tcon->ses) && (CIFS_UNIX_POSIX_PATH_OPS_CAP &
> + le64_to_cpu(tcon->fsUnixInfo.Capability))) {
> /* can not refresh inode info since size could be stale */
> rc = cifs_posix_open(full_path, &inode, inode->i_sb,
> cifs_sb->mnt_file_mode /* ignored */,
While I'm in general OK with abstracting out things like this with a
set of operations, I'm not sure it makes much sense to make things so
granular in the name of code-sharing
Would it be better for instance, to simply have a different f_ops->open
routine for SMB2, and simply check the right bit for CAP_UNIX in each
one?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx>
--
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
