Hi Jeff, If you are OK with my explanation about patch 2 I can send a fifth one with the requested documentation. Thanks, Germano On 11/18/2016 08:50 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 18:54 +0000, Germano Percossi wrote: >> The way command line parsing for mount is done, is not aligned with the >> corresponding kernel module. >> >> Options checking is not strict, some options the cifs module accepts >> are not honoured, others are accepted (and converted) even though >> they are not documented nor otherwise accepted in the cifs module. >> >> Moreover, it is not possible to send an empty domain without receiving an >> error, while the cifs module treats the 2 cases slightly differently. >> >> The other 2 patches are trivial >> >> Germano Percossi (4): >> [cifs-utils] Removed extra comma in front of domain >> [cifs-utils] Accept empty domains on the command line >> [cifs-utils] Fixed command line parsing and aligned with kernel >> [cifs-utils] Remove unneeded stdbool header in mount.cifs >> >> mount.cifs.c | 100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ >> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) >> > > Thanks. Patches 1, 3 and 4 look fine. I'm not quite sold yet on #2 > though since I'm a little unclear on when you'd want to do either. > > Either way, it would also be nice to flesh out the domain= section of > the mount.cifs manpage as well. It's a little thin... > > Thanks, > -- 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
