2) If POSIX->NFSv4 client mapping is done (as had been suggested IIRC by others in the past) at least you lose less data (NFSv4 ACLs are "richer" in function than POSIX ACLs - so at least with the POSIX->NFSv4->POSIX case you are limiting the user to the subset of choices which are actually going to be able to be stored, no inheritence etc.)
I must say that I do not understand the motivation either. POSIX is not even a standard and should be replaced with NFSv4 acls. Even now ext3/ext4 support NFSv4 acls (ok. patch is needed but the patch is there already).
If the decision was up to me, I would forbid any nfsv4 acls if the server can not store them properly (i.e. without any conversion) + forbid using nfsv4 with posix acls over sideband protocol (no standard, so netapp will never support this and the same is to be expected from Windows and Solaris). This is just adding mess and confusion.
My 5 cents... Ondrej -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
