On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 05:24:45PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >> POSIX ACLs and RichACLs are different objects, with different members >> and different algorithms operating on them. The only commonality is >> that they are both kmalloc()ed, reference counted objects, and when an >> inode is destroyed, both kinds of ACLs can be put in the same way, >> avoiding an unnecessary if. What kind of common-code container beyond >> that are you still dreaming about? > > We still have a main object that is simply a list of ACEs. But if that > doesn't work out (I suspect it should) I don't think the common base > object is a good idea. It just leads to a lot of crazy container_of > calls. There are two such container_of calls for POSIX ACLs in fs/jffs2/acl.c [which could be replaced by get_acl()], two in fs/posix_acl.c for POSIX ACLs, and two in fs/richacl.c for RichACLs. That's it. > If the common object abstraction doesn't work out we'll need > a procedural one instead that has common acl_* calls that decide what > do to based on the file system acl flag. I've already made such abstractions where it made sense; if you can find more, I don't see why we shouldn't add them. Thanks, Andreas -- 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
