On 31 jan 2014, at 15:33, Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 01/31 2014 22:21 PM, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote: >> On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 21:39 +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I checked the same under Mac OS X 10.6.8 (Snow Leopard). And I have >>>> failed on 3803 bytes size of xattr. So, I suppose that you have Mac OS X >>>> Lion. And EAs is larger under Lion yet. >>>> >>>> What version of Mac OS X have you? >>>> >>> Yup, Mountain Lion v10.8.4 :) >>> >> >> I suspect that xattrs with significant size is stored in compressed >> state on HFS+. I implemented support of compressed xattrs partially but >> I don't share this code yet. But, yes, EAs with size greater than 64 KB >> can be a problem. FYI, Example of output from one of the failing files. First from OS X and then same file after failed copy to XFS. OS X Maverik: file: "/Users/username/Pictures/iPhoto Library/Database/apdb/BigBlobs.apdb" type: "\0\0\0\0" creator: "\0\0\0\0" attributes: avbstclinmedz created: 01/25/2014 11:43:17 modified: 01/28/2014 20:02:46 Ubunutu getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names # file: srv/nas/home/apple_bak_rsync/username/Pictures/iPhoto Library/Database/BigBlobs.apdb user.com.apple.quarantine="0006;52e39545;iPhoto;” >> >>> FYI, there have a couple of things regarding HFSPlus+xattr+acl on Linux might be >>> deserved to discuss together. >>> >>> We once have a discussion about the errno in case of hit the limits of ACLs, which >>> could be referred to: >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg71125.html >>> >>> HFSPlus return ENOMEM in this case, but it should be E2BIG as per Dave's comments. >>> I worked out a patch series includes HFSPlus, but not yet posted for some reasons. >>> >>> Also, it seems to me we'd better consolidate the errno for EA as well, that is to >>> say, it's better to fix the return error to be consistent with VFS interface in case >>> of the given EA name/value length is larger than the specified limits. >>> >>> Would you like to take a look at the following two patches? >>> >> >> Yes, sure. Patches looks correct and good for me. But did you take into >> account recent significant changes of Christoph Hellwig? If so, then all >> looks good. > > Thanks for the review. That's one major reason I postpone the patch set submission > as I did it before Christoph's changes got merged, it looks like no obvious conflicts > with that, but I will find time to double check and sent it to you -- still on vacation > for Chinese Spring Festival. > > Thanks, > -Jeff _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
