From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic acl support for ->permission Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:46:57 +0200 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040904104657.GA19114@lst.de> References: <20040901152439.GA28950@lst.de> <200409012120.53027.agruen@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, shaggy@austin.ibm.com, jeffm@suse.com Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:49868 "EHLO mail.lst.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267657AbUIDKrC (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2004 06:47:02 -0400 To: Andreas Gruenbacher Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200409012120.53027.agruen@suse.de> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:20:52PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > Hello Christoph, > > as far as I can see what you propose is very similar to the approach taken in > the attached patch, with one more indirection. This looks nicer to me, at the > cost of "polluting" iops instead of vfs_permission. JFS will still need > Dave's patch, obviously. > > The attached patch only covers ext3; not sure if it even compiles. I don't like this one conceptually. checking a posix ACL isn't a fundamental method for the inode object. Checking permission is, and checking the ACL as a subaspect of that should really be a callback and not a method.