On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:06:03PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > 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 Yes, that's what I was suggesting, though I don't feel terribly strong about it; up to you whether you think it's worth it. --b. -- 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
