On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:45:58 +0100, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > + retval = ext4_set_richacl(handle, inode, acl); > > + ext4_journal_stop(handle); > > + if (retval == ENOSPC && ext4_should_retry_alloc(inode->i_sb, &retries)) > > + goto retry; > > Should that be -ENOSPC? Fixed > > I do wonder, why does ext4 need to know about richacls at all? Surely, as far > as ext4 is concerned, they should be seen as xattrs? > richacl related changes to ext4 is minimal. They mostly are to call necessary permission check functions and to map xattr to richacl structure. > If ext4 needs a mark on disk to say it supports richacls, then why can't that > simply be the presence or lack thereof of a richacl on the root dir? > I have a patch in the full series which enable richacl on ext4 file system based on ext4 compatibility flags. I didn't add that as a part of this series to enable easy testing. The goal is to use tune2fs to enable richacl and them the mount option -o acl enable richacl/posix acl accordingly. -aneesh -- 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
