From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Becker Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:02:41 -0700 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] [RFC] Mount option trap for users In-Reply-To: <20091013225014.GV11402@wotan.suse.de> References: <20090914145622.GK24075@duck.suse.cz> <20090914194404.GA28473@mail.oracle.com> <20090915092424.GB12169@duck.suse.cz> <20090917230037.GG11402@wotan.suse.de> <20091006171743.GF22781@duck.suse.cz> <20091013194615.GA23257@mail.oracle.com> <20091013201210.GE31440@duck.suse.cz> <20091013204337.GD23257@mail.oracle.com> <20091013223004.GA12273@duck.suse.cz> <20091013225014.GV11402@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: <20091013230241.GI23257@mail.oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 03:50:14PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: > Hmm, regarding this part of the discussion - how do we know if the admin > actually wants the proposed behavior? Presumably the admin in our ext3 > example has a good reason for working without acls for a time. Perhaps the > same admin would like that ability on a cluster node, without having to > unmount from all acl nodes in the cluster... I would think anyone would want the acl behavior coherent across the cluster. Otherwise node 1 is setting an acl that node 2 promptly ignores? Yuk! Especially since that admin could have accidentally booted a non-ACL ocfs2 and not realize it? > If we add cluster locking / messaging, etc to disallow this, we're removing > a potentially valid use case. I don't know that it is valid. But if we want to support it, we can clearly differentiate between "my kernel doesn't support this" and "I support it, but I was told noacl". Joel -- "Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do." - Jean-Paul Sartre Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127