On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:01:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > Al, > > > > could you please make sure you are happy with the current version of the > > richacl patch queue for the next merge window? > > I'm still not happy. > > For one I still see no reason to merge this broken ACL model at all. > It provides our actualy Linux users no benefit at all, while breaking > a lot of assumptions, especially by adding allow and deny ACE at the > same sime. Could you explain what you mean by "adding allow and deny ACE at the same time"? > It also doesn't help with the issue that the main thing it's trying > to be compatible with (Windows) actually uses a fundamentally different > identifier to apply the ACLs to - as long as you're still limited > to users and groups and not guids we'll still have that mapping problem > anyway. Agreed, but, one step at a time? My impression is that the Samba people still consider this a step forward for Linux compatibility. --b. > > But besides that fundamental question on the purpose of it I also > don't think the code is suitable, more in the individual patches. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
