From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2A529DFD for ; Mon, 5 May 2014 15:55:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B74AC006 for ; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id RMwcTMVrFSZEBCG1 for ; Mon, 05 May 2014 13:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 06:55:52 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: attr cleanups Message-ID: <20140505205552.GX26353@dastard> References: <1399130415-5382-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <53651375.9080305@sgi.com> <20140504101623.GA4947@lst.de> <53679113.8000209@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53679113.8000209@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Mark Tinguely Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:24:35AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 05/04/14 05:16, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:04:05AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > >>Depends on how parent inode pointers are implemented, this folding the > >>internal version of get and set attributes could be undone. > > > >We might have to introduce _locked version at that point. But I'd like > >to keep the xfs_name removal and other assorted cleanups. > > > > locking is only one issue, xfs_attr_(get/set/remove) are asciii only > whereas the xfs_attr_(get/set/remove)_int versions are more generic. > I am thinking of not just parent inode pointers but a non-ascii > character set. I fail to see how they are different. The attribute name is just an opaque binary blob - only when it is compared externally does it have any meaning at all. Character sets are meaningless unless you are doing case manipulation, in which case we would need to apply the same treatment as the directory code deep in the internal attribute cod. i.e It needs case aware compare and hash algorithms. However, the outer layers are completely unchanged - they just pass through the blob that was passed to them... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs