On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:22 PM, 严正 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 在 2014年11月11日，17:51，Ilya Dryomov <[email protected]> 写道：
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Yan, Zheng <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Yan, Zheng <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/ceph/libceph.h | 1 +
> net/ceph/ceph_common.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/ceph/libceph.h b/include/linux/ceph/libceph.h
> index d293f7e..8b11a79 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ceph/libceph.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ceph/libceph.h
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> #define CEPH_OPT_NOSHARE (1<<1) /* don't share client with other
> sbs */
> #define CEPH_OPT_MYIP (1<<2) /* specified my ip */
> #define CEPH_OPT_NOCRC (1<<3) /* no data crc on writes */
> +#define CEPH_OPT_NOMSGAUTH (1<<4) /* not require cephx message
> signature */
>
> #define CEPH_OPT_DEFAULT (0)
>
> diff --git a/net/ceph/ceph_common.c b/net/ceph/ceph_common.c
> index d361a274..b22d82c 100644
> --- a/net/ceph/ceph_common.c
> +++ b/net/ceph/ceph_common.c
> @@ -237,6 +237,8 @@ enum {
> Opt_noshare,
> Opt_crc,
> Opt_nocrc,
> + Opt_cephx_require_signature,
> + Opt_cephx_require_no_signature,
> };
>
> static match_table_t opt_tokens = {
> @@ -255,6 +257,8 @@ static match_table_t opt_tokens = {
> {Opt_noshare, "noshare"},
> {Opt_crc, "crc"},
> {Opt_nocrc, "nocrc"},
> + {Opt_cephx_require_signature, "cephx_require_signature"},
> + {Opt_cephx_require_no_signature, "cephx_require_no_signature"},
>
>
> Maybe "cephx_require_signatures", "nocephx_require_signatures" ? It
> would (almost) match injectargs and be more in line with general mount
> option conventions.
>
>
> nocephx_require_signature looks wired. I don’t like it. how about
> cephx_not_require_signaure.
First, whatever we settle on should end with "_signatures", not
"_signature" because that's how it's spelled out in config_opts.h.
The second issue is how to express negation. For mount options it's
conventional to have a "no" prepended. Now, whether or not that "no"
should be separated with an underscore is debatable, mount(8) man page
has examples of both:
auto_da_alloc/noauto_da_alloc
block_validity/noblock_validity
hashed_relocation/no_unhashed_relocation
bulk_read/no_bulk_read
I'd personally go with the first option (i.e. no underscore), as it's
much more common.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
