On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:20:41 -0400 > Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This patchset is a respin of the second pile of cleanups for the cifsacl > > code. Most of the changes to the already-sent patches are pretty minor > > cleanups and such. > > > > The last two patches in the series are new. The first adds a timeout to > > the idmap keys so that they can eventually work their way out of the > > cache. The second fixes an existing bug that caused "ls -l" to show the > > ownership wrong when cifsacl is used. > > > > With this set, everything seems to work as expected. Steve, could you > > pull these into your for-next branch soon so we can get them some > > testing exposure? > > > > Jeff Layton (9): > > cifs: make cifs_copy_sid handle a source sid with variable size > > subauth arrays > > cifs: redefine NUM_SUBAUTH constant from 5 to 15 > > cifs: fix the format specifiers in sid_to_str > > cifs: remove uneeded __KERNEL__ block from cifsacl.h > > cifs: simplify id_to_sid and sid_to_id mapping code > > cifs: avoid extra allocation for small cifs.idmap keys > > cifs: don't override the uid/gid in getattr when cifsacl is enabled > > cifs: set a timeout on keys in cifs.idmap cache > > cifs: ensure we revalidate the inode after readdir if cifsacl is > > enabled > > > > fs/cifs/cifsacl.c | 573 > > ++++++++++++---------------------------------------- > > fs/cifs/cifsacl.h | 49 ++--- > > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 1 - > > fs/cifs/cifsproto.h | 1 - > > fs/cifs/inode.c | 7 +- > > fs/cifs/readdir.c | 10 + > > 6 files changed, 161 insertions(+), 480 deletions(-) > > > > Hi Steve, > > I've got an updated version of this patchset in my tree. Most of the > change are pretty minor, the main one being that I dropped this patch > from the set: > > cifs: set a timeout on keys in cifs.idmap cache > > ...as I think it's better to let the userspace program decide this > timeout. > > In any case, the new series is in my cifs-next branch. I think it would > be best to drop the cifsacl patches you have in your for-next branch > and pull these instead. Sound ok? Yes - makes sense -- Thanks, Steve -- 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
