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. 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. -- 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
