Have you tried the latest XFS and Samba

[Juergen Hasch]

John M Trostel schrieb:
> 
> You mentioned that Samba & XFS still work together for you. I wonder if
> it is a strictly winNT problem or not. I downloaded CVS snapshots for
> the past few weeks and discovered that the last CVS that works with my
> XFS system was from the CVS no later than April 22. Could you check to
> see what date your Samba source is from?

I am using the CVS trees from April 30 (XFS and Samba 2.2). I'll
try this on a test machine at work. We have a lot of NT machines there.

> I see how your test for acl support using sys_acl_set_{fd/file} would
> work at the bottom of the function but would still argue for a more
> universal test at the start. I think SGI will be moving towards changing
> the acl_get_{fd/file} functions to return EOPNOTSUPP (or maybe ENOSYS)
> after detecting an acl_set attempt on a non-XFS system. Returning
> EOPNOTSUPP would be more in line with the posix standard than the
> current situation. It would then be easier to test as we entered this
> function.
> This would also eliminate the need to change the sys_acl_get_file
> function, as a NULL would be returned if no ACL was present on a file
> system supporting ACLs & EOPNOTSUP for a file system not supporting
> ACLs. The Samba posix_acls.c function would need to handle these two
> different situations.

No doubt, the best solution is to have the XFS ACLs behave Posix-like.
SGI seems to move in that direction, so my patches are just meant to 
get Samba working with ACLs until a clean solution is available.

> 
> P.S. Is ENOTSUP even defined in Linux? I couldn't find it.

ENOTSUPP is defined in linux/errno.h

  ...Juergen