From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 12 21:51:27 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9A5106566B for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:51:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA918FC16 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:51:27 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEAFaPVk2DaFvO/2dsb2JhbACEHqJYqU6PXoEng0F2BIUEhns X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,463,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="110683433" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-jnhn-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2011 16:51:26 -0500 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F47B3F2A; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:51:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:51:26 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem To: =?utf-8?Q?Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1_Drbohlav?= Message-ID: <801619581.1863246.1297547486791.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <4D551C0C.1050600@karlov.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.202] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFSv4 ACLs on NFS4 mount ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:51:27 -0000 > > Lovely, works as expected. Thanks! > Good to hear. I'll admit neither George or I had tested ZFS. > Only minor note, server-nfsv4acl.patch expect slightly different code > before (and after): > > ... > NFSVOPLOCK(vp, LK_EXCLUSIVE | LK_RETRY, p); > ... > > in 8.1-p1 vs. > > ... > if (vn_lock(vp, LK_SHARED) == 0) { > ... > > I attach patch against 8.1-p1 I finally used. > Yep, your patch is fine. (All that needs to be done is replace the VOP_ACCESS() call with VOP_ACCESSX() as you've done.) rick