From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: enable user namespace xattrs by default Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:53:01 -0600 Message-ID: <4D5C473D.5030009@redhat.com> References: <4D5C1380.2020602@redhat.com> <4D5C15C6.5000802@redhat.com> <4D5C252B.2010102@redhat.com> <20110216214910.GB26780@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andreas Dilger , ext4 development To: "Ted Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39114 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754871Ab1BPVxF (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:53:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110216214910.GB26780@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2/16/11 3:49 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 01:27:39PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 2/16/11 1:15 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: >>> On 2011-02-16, at 11:21, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> User namespace xattrs are generally useful, and I think extN >>>> is the only filesystem requiring a special mount option to >>>> enable them, when xattrs are otherwise available. So this >>>> change sets that mount option into the defaults. >>>> >>> >>> Wouldn't it be more useful to change this in the kernel, instead of only changing it in the superblock for new filesystems? >>> >> >> I thought about that; maybe it should happen in both places? > > Yes, agreed. Maybe we should do the same thing with posix ACL's as > well? ACL's can only take away access as compared to the unix > permission bits, so it's safe to enable ACL's. > > - Ted > Whoops, I didn't realize that acls were in the same boat, of "config on and then turn on with a mount option" Ok, sure, adding that makes sense to me too... Is sticking it in the _initialize() function ok with you? It's a little odd, but ... -Eric