On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 15:59 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 07:47:10PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote: > > Since nfs3_proc_create/nfs3_proc_mkdir/nfs3_proc_mknod these rpc > > ops are called > > by nfs_create/nfs_mkdir/nfs_mkdir these inode ops, so they are all > > in control of > > vfs. > > > > nfs3_proc_setacls does nothing in the !CONFIG_NFS_V3_ACL case, so > > we put > > posix_acl_create under CONFIG_NFS_V3_ACL and it also doesn't affect > > sattr->ia_mode value because vfs has did umask strip. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > I have the same comment as on the xfs patch. If the filesystem has > opted > out of acls and SB_POSIXACL isn't set in sb->s_flags then > posix_acl_create() is a nop. Why bother placing it under an ifdef? > > It adds visual noise and it implies that posix_acl_create() actually > does something even if the filesystem doesn't support posix acls. > Agreed and NACKed... Any patch that gratuitously adds #ifdefs in situations where cleaner alternatives exist is not going going to be applied by the NFS maintainers. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
