From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: agruen@kernel.org, bfields@fieldses.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, dhowells@redhat.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V1 00/22]  New ACL format for better NFSv4 acl interoperability
In-Reply-To: <20140428043909.GA26778@infradead.org>
References: <1398615293-22931-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140428043909.GA26778@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18~rc0+2~gbc64cdc (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:24:08 +0530
Message-ID: <87wqeaatj3.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:

> This doesn't address any or the previous points:
>
>  - common implementation instead of the godawful boilerplate code
>    (and we even fixed most of this for Posix ACL by now, so even less
>    reason to do the same crap again!)

We already do that with richacl. Richacl already have most of the
details implemented in common code. Comparing to recent posix acl
changes we could still simplify chmod and xattr bits. I will do that
in the next update. 

>  - common data structure with Posix ACLs
>

Can you explain this ?. Why do we want to do that ? 


> And of course no real explanation why we need the braindead access/deny
> scheme at how it will get properly integrated with the system.
>
> So in this for a clear NAK.

-aneesh

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/