Re: [RFC] POSIX ACL kernel infrastructure

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:11:33PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> It was 2.4.10; I've canged that. I wanted to use identical code from 2.2 to 
> 2.4; the non-2.5 parts can be stripped off.

Then strip them off :)  especially as you added even more ugly checks around
the lock_kernel/unlock_kernel invocations..

> Using `struct posix_acl' everywhere is so much more messy.

Why?

> Is an exception 
> justified here? The core kernel code has typedefs all over the place.

Ask Linus..  You should at least provide an alternate struct posix_acl
definition so fs.h doesn't have to pull in posix_acl.h but can use a
struct forward declaration.

> >From user space, yes. The get_posix_acl operation is currently used in nfsd; 
> going via the xattr operations would be too expensive here. The set_posix_acl 
> operation is indeed not used so far; I think it makes sense to add it for 
> completeness' sake.

I'm not fully convienced.  At least add the locking rules to Documentation/
filesystems/Locking.  Documentation/filesystems/porting should also get a
an entry about the ACL support.