On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 05:49:10AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 05:17:16AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > How do we push these changes to Linus tree ? Andrew, Viro, any comment > > > on how we can get this merged upstream ? > > > > Andrew, it sounds like you might be willing to shepherd these through? > > Let us know what you'd need. > > It really has to through the VFS tree. Do we have a VFS tree right now? > And to be honest despite the repostings there's been exactly zero > progress on getting there. Apparently some review was missed--do you have pointers to it, if there's anything that isn't covered below? > Please as a first thing submit the various small cleanups indepent > of the other changes. If you can't even those in there's no point > in trying. Second do not repeat the mistakes of the old ACL code, > that is don't do too much work inside the filesystems. Al, Linus > and me spent a lot of working on pushing it into common code and > it's not done. For any new ACL model I really want to see zero > per-fs code except for callouts in chmod & co and actually > setting the xattr vector to a genericly provided one. And please > wire up all common filesystems to actually prove that point. Sounds reasonable. > I also really hate all the duplication - I want to see a really good > reason why all this code needs to be duplicated. Just look at > the mess done to check_acl and the ACL caching in the inode and > any normal person would throw up. There is absolutely no reason > to not implement Posix ACLs as a subset of the NFSv4 ACL (not actually > a subset in the strict mathematical sense, but close enough). Just to make sure I understand: you're just talking about the implementation here--you want as much as possible to be done by routines shared by NFSv4 and Posix ACLs--right? (You're not suggesting that e.g. a user should be able to treat NFSv4 ACLs as if they were Posix ACLs.) > After all this techical work (which was brought up before) has been > done you can resubmit it. And that point you'd better have very > good and very lengthy rationale for why adding an utterly stupid > ACL model is supposed to be a good idea. It's the ACL model that Samba and NFSv4 clients use, and we want to do a better job of exporting linux filesystems to those clients. I don't know how to make the justification much longer than that. --b. -- 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
