Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:57:21 -0500
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FMODE_EXEC or alike?
Message-ID: <20060222195721.GC28219@fieldses.org>
References: <20060220221948.GC5733@linuxhacker.ru> <20060220215122.7aa8bbe5.akpm@osdl.org> <1140530396.7864.63.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20060221232607.GS22042@fieldses.org> <1140564751.8088.35.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1140564751.8088.35.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 842
Lines: 21

On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:32:31PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> 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.

Since exec will never use the above combination, I don't think the
current proposal mandates any particular semantics in that case.

So I'm assuming that we could choose the semantics to fit nfsd's
purposes.  Am I missing anything?

--b.
-
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/