On Jul 16 2007 18:11, Steve French wrote:
> I would like opinions on how to handle a specific use question ...
>
> if the user has mounted e.g. \\server1\shareA (e.g. on a Samba
> server) using defaults (and thus gotten support for the Unix
> Extensions, but then does a second mount trying to disable Unix
> Extensions (e.g. "mount -t cifs //server1/shareB /mnt -o nounix" then
> what should the result be:
>
> 1) mount fails? If so what return code - there is no easy way to pass
> error strings back across mount (get_sb returns an int - a posix
> return code)
>
> 2) mount succeeds, ignoring the "nounix" option but prints a warning to dmesg
>
> 3) mount succeeds but turns off the Unix Capability bits so no Unix
> Extension requests are sent on either shareA or shareB (although the
> server behavior will still be a little different than if the client
> had not negotiated Unix Extensions at all, at least it will be
> different unless the session drops and is reconnected at which time
> the server will see the Unix Extensions disabled)
>
> 4) mount succeeds and no Unix Extension requests are sent on the tree
> id for shareB (the requests to shareA are unaffected)
Vote goes to (4).
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
