From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Add wine mount option (try #2) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:16:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20110412101649.0d760e94@corrin.poochiereds.net> References: <1302435874-11073-1-git-send-email-piastry@etersoft.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Pavel Shilovsky Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1302435874-11073-1-git-send-email-piastry-7qunaywFIewox3rIn2DAYQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:44:34 +0400 Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > Add wine mount option that switches on WINE-capability mode - forward > pid of a process who opened a file to any read and write operation. > > This can prevent WINE program from failing on read or write operation > on a previously locked file region from the same file descriptor, because > while a run of WINE program two processes work on the same file descriptor: > 1) WINE-application does read and write on a file; > 2) WINE-server does open and lock. > > Also switch on strictcache and forcemand modes because WINE needs to work > with mandatory brlocks and does read and write operations correctly with > them. > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Shilovsky As a general rule, I'm not too fond of enshrining application behavior into a mount option like this. What if wine changes their implementation in the future? Would it make more sense to have one mount option that enables this new mode of PID handling, and keep forcemand and strictcache separate? -- Jeff Layton