From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1424871Ab2LFVbr (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:31:47 -0500 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:37209 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424779Ab2LFVbp (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:31:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:31:33 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Jeremy Allison Cc: Alan Cox , Pavel Shilovsky , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, wine-devel@winehq.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add O_DENY* flags to fcntl and cifs Message-ID: <20121206213133.GB4821@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Jeremy Allison , Alan Cox , Pavel Shilovsky , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, wine-devel@winehq.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org References: <1354818391-7968-1-git-send-email-piastry@etersoft.ru> <20121206194949.7ab20d56@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121206195752.GA18585@samba2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121206195752.GA18585@samba2> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:57:52AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > And this is where things get really ugly of course :-). > > For the CIFSFS client they're expecting to be able to > just ship them to a Windows server, where they'll > get the (insane) Windows semantics. These semantics > are not what would be wanted on a local filesystem. I'm confused; why would a userspace application need to be able to request this behavior? I can understand why an SMB client might depend on this so it can use Windows' insane cache coherency scheme. Are you trying to let Samba act as a middle man, where a remote file system is mounted on Linux, and then Samba will try to act as a SMB server, so you want to be able to pass through these semantics, i.e.: Windows SMB Server <---> Linux cifs remote file system <---> Linux Samba server <---> Windows SMB client Is this somewhat contrivuewd example the intended use case? Or something else? - Ted