On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:34:21 +0530, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 10:16 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 20:28 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Suggestion for discussion at LSF summit: > > > > > > Rich-acl patches posted at > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/17414 helps in > > > defining a new acl format for Linux that can interoperate better with > > > NFSv4 acl and CIFS acl. I would like have a discussion on the new acl > > > > What about NTFS? > > > > > format, rules regarding how to handle file mode changes and acl > > > values. Also how to handle uid to nfs name@domain mapping > > > > > > -aneesh > > > > I very much second this proposal. We've been spinning our wheels on the > > issue of support for non-posix draft acls for far too long. > > So could we take the proposal to the relevant list to see who else wants > to talk about it and whether any of the ground work can be covered > beforehand? > Adding fsdevel, ext4 list. samba will also be interested, but that is subscriber only list -aneesh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
