ty den 15.02.2005 Klokka 21:35 (+0100) skreiv Olivier Galibert: > That's the second time I see you refusing an interoperability patch > without bothering to say what would be acceptable. Do we need a fork > between knfsd-pure and knfsd-actually-works-in-the-real-world or what?
You appear to be under the misguided impression that if a patch is reviewed, and rejected, then somehow the responsibility for resolving your problem (and cleaning up the code) falls to the reviewer. I'm not aware of any such rule. Feel free to apply as many hacks as you like to your own private fork, but the mainline kernel has to be maintained by a community of people most of which will not be aware, when debugging the ACL code, of the little special cases peppered around the RPC server code in an entirely different section of the kernel. In this particular case, there are 100s of solutions that do not involve putting NFSv3 ACL code in the generic RPC layer. If there really is a generic need for RPC programs to override the RFC-specified error that is returned to the client, then one obvious solution is to add a callback that allows them to do so. Even a flag called RPC_SVC_DO_NOT_EVER_RETURN_BAD_VERS would be easier to maintain. Trond -- Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
