a few cleanup patches
ddiss at suse.de
Fri Oct 25 05:41:27 MDT 2013
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:43:00 -0700
Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 08:57:41PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:56:22AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > No, I don't think we need to do that. I think this is the
> > > only issue that was missed, the rest of the code looks
> > > good - and as I say I really want to get rid of that
> > > horrible INTERNAL_OPEN_ONLY long term as it leads to
> > > mistakes :-(. As you know I'm a little busy with something
> > > else at the moment :-) else I'd be making it a higher priority.
> > >
> > > Just review and push if you agree !
> > We 100% need tests for this. This code is so freaking tricky
> > that we can't let anything controversial in without full
> > test coverage. Please push the reverts of the two
> > controversial patches.
> Sure, we need tests I agree. I don't think we have
> any tests for the nasty INTERNAL_OPEN_ONLY code
> path other than if the xattr set fails on the
> file attributes set :-(.
> The old printing code uses it to check driver
> file versions (it shouldn't) and the completely
> unused SMB1 file_copy code also seems to use it.
> Oh yeah, and the get/set file security RPCs
> used by Win9x clients uses it (again, it shouldn't).
> Once I've got some more free time I will eradicate
> this pest from our code base once and for all :-).
Sounds great. get_correct_cversion() certainly makes it onto my chopping
I hope RENAME_FLAG_COPY falls into the same (unused) category as
SMBcopy, so the whole code path can be done away with.
More information about the samba-technical