lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: FMODE_EXEC or alike?
    From
    Date
    On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 18:26 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
    > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 08:59:56AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
    > > Hmm.... We might possibly want to use that for NFSv4 at some point in
    > > order to deny write access to the file to other clients while it is in
    > > use.
    >
    > So on the NFS client, an open with FMODE_EXEC could be translated into
    > an NFSv4 open with a deny_write bit (since NFSv4 opens also do windows
    > share locks).
    >
    > An NFSv4 server might also be able to translate deny mode writes into
    > FMODE_EXEC in the case where it was exporting a cluster filesystem. It
    > wouldn't completely solve the problem of implementing cluster-coherent
    > share locks (which also let you deny reads, who knows why), but it seems
    > like it would address the case most likely to matter.

    Hmm... I don't think you want to overload write deny bits onto
    FMODE_EXEC. FMODE_EXEC is basically, a read-only mode, so it
    would mean that you could no longer do something like

    OPEN(READ|WRITE,DENY_WRITE)

    which I would assume is one of the more frequent Windoze open modes.

    Cheers,
    Trond

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-22 00:35    [W:0.022 / U:29.972 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site