From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29])
	by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3CC7F37
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Tue,  6 May 2014 14:40:58 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <53693AC8.8020605@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 14:40:56 -0500
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: attr cleanups
References: <1399130415-5382-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
	<53651375.9080305@sgi.com> <20140504101623.GA4947@lst.de>
	<53679113.8000209@sgi.com> <20140505205552.GX26353@dastard>
In-Reply-To: <20140505205552.GX26353@dastard>
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, xfs@oss.sgi.com

On 05/05/14 15:55, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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.

Right now xfs_attr_get(), xfs_attr_set, xfs_attr_remove() expect the 
name to be a NULL terminate character array.

The internal versions of these functions have a more useful interface, 
they use a blob for the name (the array/length xfs_name structure).

--Mark.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs