On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:05:37AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:09:02 -0400, "J. Bruce Fields" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:35:07AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:47:38PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
> > > > What we need in the first step is to get VFS changes reviewed.Once we
> > > > agree on the VFS changes done, then we can start looking at the changes
> > > > upto NFS richacl nfs support. When get that merged then we can start
> > > > having discussion on how local file system maintainers want to migrate
> > > > the existing file system with posixacl to richacl.
> > >
> > > OK. So, personally: I'm resigned to the idea that we want support for
> > > this ACL model. The vfs changes look OK to me (and wouldn't be changed
> > > by any comments I'd have on the more richacl-specific patches to
> > > follow). So that's an ACK from me on the first set of these patches,
> > > assuming it's OK with people to merge these things one step at a time.
> >
> > Is there any progress on this?
>
> The next step would be to get Al Viro or Christoph to look at the
> proposed VFS changes and get an ACK on them. Meanwhile i can rebase
> the full series to the latest linux kernel.
>
> Apart from that is there any specific changes you would like to see
> as a part of richacl patch series. Would you like to see the full
> patchset posted to the list or should we go in steps as mentioned above
> ?
People need to see the users that justify the VFS changes. I think it
would be more useful to post all the patches required to get the new
feature.
With the kernel summit and plumbers conference ongoing this week,
there's probably not a great rush.
--b.