From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC] POSIX ACL kernel infrastructure Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:28:32 +0100 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20020805132832.B5301@infradead.org> References: <200208041546.35234.agruen@suse.de> <200208041614.47152.agruen@suse.de> <20020804153349.A28109@infradead.org> <200208051411.33286.agruen@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linux-FSDevel Return-path: To: Andreas Gruenbacher Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200208051411.33286.agruen@suse.de>; from agruen@suse.de on Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:11:33PM +0200 List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.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.