From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 1 May 2002 17:01:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 1 May 2002 17:01:42 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:42767 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 1 May 2002 17:01:41 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD057BE.2050603@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 17:01:50 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/00200203 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Viro CC: Linus Torvalds , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] alternative API for raw devices In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexander Viro wrote: >Actual IO code is pretty much copied from old driver. The main differences: > * device is originally created with ownership/permissions of the > block device we'd used; you can chmod/chown it at any time, > obviously. > Tangent a little bit to partitions. Consider a filesystem which creates device nodes for N partitions on a spindle, "msdos_partition_fs". In a discussion a while back on permissions, you suggested that inheriting permissions from the base block device was the wrong way to go, and that (for now) 'uid' and 'gid' mount options were the best route. Is inheriting permissions coming back into style? Or am I reading too much into the permissions scheme you describe above? Jeff