From: Dmitry Monakhov Subject: Re: Ping. Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:30:58 +0400 Message-ID: <87y6gp2brh.fsf@openvz.org> References: <1268920970-9061-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <87ljd1vtth.fsf@openvz.org> <20100413181450.GA5720@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, adilger@sun.com, jack@suse.cz, david@fromorbit.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, xemul@openvz.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100413181450.GA5720@infradead.org> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:14:50 -0400") Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig writes: > On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 01:00:58PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: >> Dmitry Monakhov writes: >> >> > This is 6'th version of extened inode owner patch-set. >> > Please review it tell me what do you think about all this. >> > Are you agree with this approach? >> > Are you worry about some implementation details? >> > Is it ready for merge to some devel's tree? >> Ping. I haven't got response about the patchset, just small note about >> xattr-name from Andreas. >> Please clarify what do you think about whole idea and >> current patch-set state. What do i have to do to make a progress? > > As long as you still have the awkward ifdefs and different semantics for About ifdefs style: How can i avoid CONFIG_PROJECT_ID without bloating inode size? embedded people will kill me for this. I just act similar quota code, or you want protect prjid logic via quota config option? I don't remember, are we already talk about this? If so please remind me your vision. > "isolation" vs "not" there's still a NACK from me. But in the end Al > will have to decide if he wants to take your patches or not.