On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:41:15 -0600, Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2011-10-18, at 9:33 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Support the richacl permission model in ext4. The richacls are stored > > in "system.richacl" xattrs.This need to be enabled by tune2fs or during > > mkfs.ext4 > > It isn't clear from your commit comment or the code what needs to be enabled by tune2fs or mkfs.ext4. Please list the specific ext4 feature > that needs to be enabled. The last patch explains the feature flag details http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1204873 I am adding a new compat feature flag to indicate richacl is enabled. > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_EXT4_FS_RICHACL > > +#define EXT4_IS_RICHACL(inode) IS_RICHACL(inode) > > > > > +#else /* CONFIG_FS_EXT4_RICHACL */ > > + > > +#define EXT4_IS_RICHACL(inode) (0) > > It is a bit confusing that you are using both EXT4_IS_RICHACL() and > IS_RICHACL() in this code. Initially I thought EXT4_IS_RICHACL() was > checking an ext4-specific inode flag, but it seems that it is instead > conditional upon the configure flags. > The reason is to not do the superblock flag check when EXT4_FS_RICHACL is not enabled. > It looks like it should be possible to use EXT4_IS_RICHACL() in all > of the code, since the richacl-specific code will not be compiled > anyway. > The reasoning is, all richacl specific code do check for whether MS_RICHACL is enabled or not and the common file system code does something similar to EXT4_IS_RICHACL() that is (0) when the file system is not compiled with richacl option. -aneesh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
