[PATCH] cifs: call strtobool instead of custom implementation
andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com
Mon May 12 07:59:55 MDT 2014
On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 16:22 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:41:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > This changes the returned value of cifs_linux_ext_proc_write() to
> > > -EINVAL if strtobool() was not able to find a boolean value.
> > > Previously setting anything non-bool wouldn't cause this side-effect.
> > >
> > > Steve, is it OK to you? This is certainly a visible change in that
> > > writing to a proc entry will cause user-space error where it was
> > > ignored before.
> > >
> > I think returning an error there is the right thing to do. If someone
> > is writing to this file, they likely mean for it to have some sort of
> > an effect.
> > Honestly though, the *best* thing would be to (gradually) convert these
> > procfile switches into module options. The way it stands now, it's
> > really hard to set these at boot time. You have to:
> > # modprobe cifs
> > # echo N > /proc/fs/cifs/LinuxExtensionsEnabled
> > # mount -t cifs ...
> > Making sure that gets done for anything in /etc/fstab is...tricky.
> > What would be best is to add module options that affect these
> > variables that could be set via /etc/modprobe.d.
> > Then, either add a warning printk when someone writes to these files
> > that they'll soon be deprecated (in 2-3 releases), or maybe turn them
> > into symlinks that point to the files under /sys/module/cifs/parameters.
> I agree.
> I think strtobool() patches are fine (+ change to the commit message).
I will resend v2 soon. Could I add your Acked-by or Reviewed-by?
> The change to module options should certainly be done in a separate
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko at intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
More information about the samba-technical