Zorro Lang wrote:
于 2013年12月15日 21:13, Jean-Pierre André 写道:Hi again,I am waiting for your expected reply from the glusterfs team to make a choice.Hi,I have talked about it with glusterfs developer, the expected result is depend on the backend fs of glusterfs. So the suggestion is don't test this case for glusterfs, if must test, the most possible result for glusterfs is "expect 06555,65534,65532 lstat ${n0} mode,uid,gid".But ...Because the glusterd run with root in gluster server, so the chown operation is did by root in gluster server. But the posix didn't specify whether the bits also should be cleared when root does the chown(), in the Linux the behavior depends on the kernel version. So I suggest that glusterfs don't test this case.What do you think?
So, for glusterfs the test must be tolerant to both options. Attached is a new proposal. Regards Jean-Pierre
updates.tar.gz
Description: application/gzip
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ ntfs-3g-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
