on 2022/4/19 22:11, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 15:59 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 07:47:10PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote: >>> Since nfs3_proc_create/nfs3_proc_mkdir/nfs3_proc_mknod these rpc >>> ops are called >>> by nfs_create/nfs_mkdir/nfs_mkdir these inode ops, so they are all >>> in control of >>> vfs. >>> >>> nfs3_proc_setacls does nothing in the !CONFIG_NFS_V3_ACL case, so >>> we put >>> posix_acl_create under CONFIG_NFS_V3_ACL and it also doesn't affect >>> sattr->ia_mode value because vfs has did umask strip. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >> >> I have the same comment as on the xfs patch. If the filesystem has >> opted >> out of acls and SB_POSIXACL isn't set in sb->s_flags then >> posix_acl_create() is a nop. Why bother placing it under an ifdef? >> >> It adds visual noise and it implies that posix_acl_create() actually >> does something even if the filesystem doesn't support posix acls. >> > > Agreed and NACKed... > > Any patch that gratuitously adds #ifdefs in situations where cleaner > alternatives exist is not going going to be applied by the NFS > maintainers. Ok, will drop this patch. >
