On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:55:03 -0400, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:55:33PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Some permission models can allow processes to take ownership of a file, > > change the file permissions, and set the file timestamps. Introduce new > > permission mask flags and check for those permissions in > > inode_change_ok(). > > These little helper functions seem like they might be reasonable cleanup > even without the richacl_change_ok() piece; wonder if it'd be worth > splitting out the cleanup and applying it now? > > Not that it's necessary--seems like a straightforward enough patch as > is. Those helpers also have richacl_chage_ok(..) done as a part of the call. So they cannot directly be applied to upstream. But we can do similar helpers for upstream and add richacl changes as a separate patch ? Is that what you are suggesting. I can split this patch to two in that case -aneesh -- 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
