Re: [PATCH 1/5] vfs: Add additional owner identifier

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:11:57PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 09:34:33PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> >> This patch add project inode identifier. Project ID may be used as
> >> auxiliary owner specifier in addition to standard uid/gid.
> >
> > There's really no reason to make this a config option.
> Project id feature is not likely to be widely used (i hope only 
> at the beginning). Personally this is not bad to avoid config option.
> At least we will have many new users for free. But I predict
> many angry voices against enabling this feature by default.

How would those "angry voices" notice this feature?

--b.

> Look, we even have CONFIG_BLOCK option at the time when this option
> is enabled in 99.99% of systems.
> 
> Let's ask Jan an Al:
> Will they accept genetic projectid support without appropriate config option?
> >  And xattrs
> > are a rather bad interfaces to this, so even if a filesystem has to
> > resort to implement the project ID this way, this should be hidden
> > inside the filesystem.
> Only one question "Why not?".
> I've tried to count pro and contra options.
> *PRO*
>  1) xattr interface already available, we don't have to invent a new one
>  2) xattrs are supported by most of backup tools and other fs-related
>     tools.
>  3) xattr interface is rather simple and flexible. Filesystem is free
>     to store it's projectid whenever it likes to, xattr is just an
>     manipulation interface.
> *CONTRA*
>  1) XATTR_CREATE/XATTR_REPLACE is useless for project id since
>     inode is belongs to default project (id == 0)
> 
>  
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html