[PATCH 0/4][cifs-utils] Improvement and fixes for command line options

[Jeff Layton]

On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 18:14 +0000, Germano Percossi wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> If you are OK with my explanation about patch 2 I can
> send a fifth one with the requested documentation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Germano
> 

They look fine to me -- merged. They should make v6.7.

Once you get the kernel command-line options sorted out, then it'd be
great if you could pass along a patch to the manpage as well.

Thanks,

> On 11/18/2016 08:50 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 18:54 +0000, Germano Percossi wrote:
> > > 
> > > The way command line parsing for mount is done, is not aligned with the
> > > corresponding kernel module.
> > > 
> > > Options checking is not strict, some options the cifs module accepts
> > > are not honoured, others are accepted (and converted) even though
> > > they are not documented nor otherwise accepted in the cifs module.
> > > 
> > > Moreover, it is not possible to send an empty domain without receiving an
> > > error, while the cifs module treats the 2 cases slightly differently.
> > > 
> > > The other 2 patches are trivial
> > > 
> > > Germano Percossi (4):
> > >   [cifs-utils] Removed extra comma in front of domain
> > >   [cifs-utils] Accept empty domains on the command line
> > >   [cifs-utils] Fixed command line parsing and aligned with kernel
> > >   [cifs-utils] Remove unneeded stdbool header in mount.cifs
> > > 
> > >  mount.cifs.c | 100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks. Patches 1, 3 and 4 look fine. I'm not quite sold yet on #2
> > though since I'm a little unclear on when you'd want to do either.
> > 
> > Either way, it would also be nice to flesh out the domain= section of
> > the mount.cifs manpage as well. It's a little thin...
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton at samba.org>