From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Steve French" Subject: Re: mount options for selectively disabling parts of CIFS Unix Extensions Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:13:25 -0500 Message-ID: <524f69650707170713v37d917a3m87218be636c24025@mail.gmail.com> References: <524f69650707161540n4f4e785ai6c6039d3240456f9@mail.gmail.com> <20070717124936.GD12244@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]:38645 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933472AbXGQON0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:13:26 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d32so2918888pye for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:13:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20070717124936.GD12244@fieldses.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org One example (Samba bug # 2008) is so that Samba will follow symlinks on the server side (rather than have the client resolve them). On 7/17/07, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 05:40:46PM -0500, Steve French wrote: > > I have seen various requests from users to disable part of the CIFS > > Unix Extensions on mount (in some cases fall back to the more > > primitive Windows behavior) but am wondering how far down this line of > > thought I should go ... > > Why do they want to do that? Just curious. > > --b. > -- Thanks, Steve