On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 16:22 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:41:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > This changes the returned value of cifs_linux_ext_proc_write() to > > > -EINVAL if strtobool() was not able to find a boolean value. > > > Previously setting anything non-bool wouldn't cause this side-effect. > > > > > > Steve, is it OK to you? This is certainly a visible change in that > > > writing to a proc entry will cause user-space error where it was > > > ignored before. > > > > > > > I think returning an error there is the right thing to do. If someone > > is writing to this file, they likely mean for it to have some sort of > > an effect. > > > > Honestly though, the *best* thing would be to (gradually) convert these > > procfile switches into module options. The way it stands now, it's > > really hard to set these at boot time. You have to: > > > > # modprobe cifs > > # echo N > /proc/fs/cifs/LinuxExtensionsEnabled > > # mount -t cifs ... > > > > Making sure that gets done for anything in /etc/fstab is...tricky. > > > > What would be best is to add module options that affect these > > variables that could be set via /etc/modprobe.d. > > > > Then, either add a warning printk when someone writes to these files > > that they'll soon be deprecated (in 2-3 releases), or maybe turn them > > into symlinks that point to the files under /sys/module/cifs/parameters. > I agree. > > I think strtobool() patches are fine (+ change to the commit message). I will resend v2 soon. Could I add your Acked-by or Reviewed-by? > The change to module options should certainly be done in a separate > patchset. > -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- 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
