Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261840AbUKUWIA (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:08:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261844AbUKUWH6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:07:58 -0500 Received: from pigwidgeon.lancs.ac.uk ([148.88.0.67]:27112 "EHLO pigwidgeon.lancs.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261840AbUKUWHZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:07:25 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) From: steveb@unix.lancs.ac.uk Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:07:24 +0100 Subject: Remove arbitrary #acl entries limits on ext[23] Cc: agruen@suse.de To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 999 Lines: 24 About six months ago, Andreas Gruenbacher said: > The second patch that removes the ACL entry limit for writes is not > included. I don't want to push that patch now, because large ACLs would > cause 2.4 and current 2.6 kernels to fail. My plan is to remove the > second limit later, in a half-year or year or so. If you think we should > go the full way I wouldn't mind, however. (The patch to remove the limit is referenced at http://lwn.net/Articles/69839/) Has sufficient time now passed for this patch to be reconsidered? If not, would an acceptable compromise be to allow runtime configuration for this limit (e.g. via sysctl)? This would preserve backwards compatibility, but allow folk to choose their own arbitrary limits. -- Steve Bennett - 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/