On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 03:51:15AM +0200, Andreas Grünbacher wrote: >> 2015-10-12 2:10 GMT+02:00 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > Also, I really dislike the API where passing a NULL acl means to >> > "set this acl" actually means "remove the existing ACL". Why no >> > ->remove_acl method called from the generic code? >> >> It's not uncommon, it saves inode operations and wiring-up code. > > I know it's common. All it does is put extra branches in the > filesystem code to do this, because remove is a different operation > to set. The API sucks, and we're not limited on inode operations, > and the operator overloading makes the filesystem code unnecessarily > complex as it has to detect when to branch out ot remove or not... I've tried it out. The filesystem code could be simplified (see the richacl-wip [*] branch until the next posting). Adding a remove_richacl inode operation on top of that really doesn't help. Thanks, Andreas [*] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/agruen/linux-richacl.git richacl-wip _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
