--- Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 17:55 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > > > There should be no need for ioctls. > > > > Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned you just threw a bunny under > > the train for no apparent reason. What have ioctls got to do with > > anything? > > What part of 'interoperability' don't you get here? I can understand that an implementation of NFS+xattr could present some issues where only one side speaks the xattr protocols, or where they speak them differently. If that's a showstopper from the network protocol side (it isn't from the file system end, client or server) then you're right, it won't work. What I don't understand is why it would be a showstopper. The current NFS protocol makes all sorts of assumptions about the data it passes (like the uids on the two ends mapping sanely) that seem to me to be as much a problem as xattr value mapping. > There is no room for extensions that allow clients+servers to establish > arbitrary private protocols. I think that I understand that you believe that, what I don't understand is why you believe that. Is it an artifact of the locking protocol that only worked about half the time, and then in a half donkied way? I'm not trying to be an obstructionist idiot here, even if that's how it may appear. I have my pet solution, I really don't see the problem with it, and it looks to me like the arguements against it are either so obvious I'm missing them (does happen) or based on dogmas I don't subscribe to. Thank you for helping me (and maybe some others) understand the issues we're up against so that I (we) can address issues better in the future. Casey Schaufler casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
