From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" Subject: Re: [PATCH] [fs/9p] Make access=client default in 9p2000.L protocol Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:58:51 +0530 Message-ID: <87oc72xvx8.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1296111339-17414-1-git-send-email-jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, "Venkateswararao Jujjuri \(JV\)" To: "Venkateswararao Jujjuri \(JV\)" , v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.141]:52164 "EHLO e23smtp08.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752990Ab1A0O26 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:28:58 -0500 Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.247]) by e23smtp08.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p0RET8sj008933 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 01:29:08 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p0RESuVU2228312 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 01:28:56 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p0RESt8l007546 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 01:28:56 +1100 In-Reply-To: <1296111339-17414-1-git-send-email-jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:55:39 -0800, "Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)" wrote: > Current code sets access=user as default for all protocol versions. > This patch chagnes it to "client" only for dotl. > > User can always specify particular access mode with -o access= option. > No change there. > > Signed-off-by: Venkateswararao Jujjuri > --- > fs/9p/v9fs.c | 21 ++++++++++++--------- > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/9p/v9fs.c b/fs/9p/v9fs.c > index 7823a7c..b9f6c34 100644 > --- a/fs/9p/v9fs.c > +++ b/fs/9p/v9fs.c > @@ -263,19 +263,12 @@ struct p9_fid *v9fs_session_init(struct v9fs_session_info *v9ses, > list_add(&v9ses->slist, &v9fs_sessionlist); > spin_unlock(&v9fs_sessionlist_lock); > > - v9ses->flags = V9FS_ACCESS_USER; > strcpy(v9ses->uname, V9FS_DEFUSER); > strcpy(v9ses->aname, V9FS_DEFANAME); > v9ses->uid = ~0; > v9ses->dfltuid = V9FS_DEFUID; > v9ses->dfltgid = V9FS_DEFGID; > > - rc = v9fs_parse_options(v9ses, data); > - if (rc < 0) { > - retval = rc; > - goto error; > - } > - Now we do v9fs option parsing after client_create ? is that ok ? > v9ses->clnt = p9_client_create(dev_name, data); > if (IS_ERR(v9ses->clnt)) { > retval = PTR_ERR(v9ses->clnt); > @@ -284,10 +277,20 @@ struct p9_fid *v9fs_session_init(struct v9fs_session_info *v9ses, > goto error; > } > > - if (p9_is_proto_dotl(v9ses->clnt)) > + v9ses->flags = V9FS_ACCESS_USER; > + > + if (p9_is_proto_dotl(v9ses->clnt)) { > + v9ses->flags = V9FS_ACCESS_CLIENT; > v9ses->flags |= V9FS_PROTO_2000L; > - else if (p9_is_proto_dotu(v9ses->clnt)) > + } else if (p9_is_proto_dotu(v9ses->clnt)) { > v9ses->flags |= V9FS_PROTO_2000U; > + } > + > + rc = v9fs_parse_options(v9ses, data); > + if (rc < 0) { > + retval = rc; > + goto error; Don't we need a p9_client_destroy there ? > + } > > v9ses->maxdata = v9ses->clnt->msize - P9_IOHDRSZ; > -aneesh