On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:16:10 -0400 Simo Sorce <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:11 +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:07 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > > Because the filesystem can do that when multiple applications are > > > involved without having to change them all to talk to each other and > > > invent custom protocol all the time just to keep some additional > > > metadata associated to a file.. > > > > > It's still a custom protocol. The applications need to agree on a data > > format and store it somewhere. The portable way to do this is to write > > an application library that they can link to. > > Perhaps I was unclear, you are never going to see that custom library > linked into the 'mv' command. > > So your approach makes little sense if the object is to maintain data > coherent when people need to handle files from random applications and > scripts and general system maintenance. > > The data may be relevant only to a specific application. > > I am not saying you *have* to implement xattrs support, just saying that > it is not a mere 'applications should synchronize data themselves' > problem. > I think the real solution if people need this is to lead an effort to put xattrs into the spec. I think there is still time to get new features into v4.3 if someone wants to champion it... -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
