On 11/30/2010 03:17 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 11:44 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> On 11/30/2010 04:57 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> fs/nfs/client.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >>> fs/nfs/idmap.c | 21 +++++++++++++-------- >>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 8 +++++++- >>> include/linux/nfs_fs_sb.h | 1 + >>> 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/client.c b/fs/nfs/client.c >>> index 0870d0d..fb84771 100644 >>> --- a/fs/nfs/client.c >>> +++ b/fs/nfs/client.c >>> @@ -58,6 +58,11 @@ static LIST_HEAD(nfs_volume_list); >>> static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(nfs_client_active_wq); >>> >>> /* >>> + * Turn off NFSv4 uid/gid mapping when using AUTH_SYS >>> + */ >>> +static int nfs4_disable_idmapping = 0; >> >> The double negative is a bit hard. I had to read it 3 times to >> register. Perhaps consider reversing the name and the default >> >> +static int nfs4_enable_idmapping = 1; > > No. That suggests that idmapping is optional and that you are fine not > enabling it. What we're doing here is adding in a hack that is not > tolerated by most servers. People _should_ have to think before > disabling idmapping. > I'm not suggesting anything. I've propose an identical system that avoids the confusion I had when I first read it in the morning before my coffee. But if for you default means zero and override/hack means set to 1, then sure. Just that I never thought that. Default is 1, set 0 to disable is just as fine for me. > Cheers > Trond > Thanks Boaz -- 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
