2015-09-18 23:36 GMT+02:00 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 12:27:17PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> + if (!richace_is_owner(who) &&
>> + richace_is_everyone(ace) && richace_is_allow(ace) &&
>
> That richace_is_allow(ace) check is redundant at this point, isn't it?
Yes, I'll change that.
>> + !(allow & ~(ace->e_mask & acl->a_other_mask)))
>
> Uh, I wish C had a subset-of operator, that construct took me longer to
> work out than I should admit.
>
>> + allow = 0;
>> +
>> + if (allow) {
>> + if (allow_last)
>> + return richace_change_mask(alloc, &allow_last,
>> + allow_last->e_mask | allow);
>> + else {
>> + struct richace who_copy;
>> +
>> + richace_copy(&who_copy, who);
>> + ace = acl->a_entries + acl->a_count - 1;
>
> Isn't ace already set to the last ace?
Yes indeed, that line can also go.
Thanks,
Andreas
--
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
