From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267386AbUHXKHn (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:07:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267373AbUHXKHn (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:07:43 -0400 Received: from imladris.demon.co.uk ([193.237.130.41]:55304 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267386AbUHXKGG (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:06:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:05:55 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: James Morris Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Stephen Smalley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][1/7] xattr consolidation - libfs Message-ID: <20040824110555.A27385@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , James Morris , Andrew Morton , viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Stephen Smalley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20040823194936.A20008@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jmorris@redhat.com on Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:32:13AM -0400 X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by phoenix.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:32:13AM -0400, James Morris wrote: > > limit on the number of xattrs. > > Then you can't dynamically regsiter an xattr handler (e.g. as a module). > Is this really desirable? IMHO yes. This is an integral part of the filesystem, and the handlers are really small anyway. And it makes the code really a lot simpler. > > > Also s/simple_// for most symbols as this stuff isn't simple, in fact it's > > quite complex :) > > Removing the prefix would imply that this was the 'proper' way to > implement xattr support. Really, these are just helper functions for the > simplest xattr implementations. I think they should have some prefix, but > don't care too much what it actually is. Suggestions? I'd call them generic_. I've done some research and they should work very well for any xattr implementation in the tree. As I mentioned in the previous mail I'd like to get rid of the old inode operations for xattrs completely in the long-term (I had been researching this before your patch because I wanted to get rid of the access control checks in the filesystem that are inherent with theses)