Steve French wrote: > For the non-unix case (e.g. Windows servers) the mode will be taken > from the default specified on the mount. I am not sure if we also > should add code to also honor umask in that case. > I don't think it would be necessary to add code for the windows case, we should just rely on windows semantics (with acl if supplied) for pure windows mounts. > I am not sure how common it is to change umask to different values in > different processes which would access the same mount. > I think if we are going to use umask we should use it the way it is used in Unix, i.e. tagged to the process. I realise that in some circumstances that having a mount wide umask would be handy, however if we are going to apply unix style semantics we should stick to the unix style process bound umask; i.e. the method of least suprise. Matt -- Matt Keenan OpCode Solutions - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
