From: Andreas Gruenbacher Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2 00/16] New ACL format for better NFSv4 acl interoperability Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:11:53 +0200 Message-ID: <201007201211.53289.agruen@suse.de> References: <1278096227-16784-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201007192119.50868.agruen@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: sfrench@us.ibm.com, ffilz@us.ibm.com, adilger@sun.com, sandeen@redhat.com, tytso@mit.edu, staubach@redhat.com, bfields@citi.umich.edu, jlayton@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57317 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932069Ab0GTKL4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:11:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 20 July 2010 11:31:07 Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > We need to update ACL4_VALID_FLAGS to now consider ACL4_MASKED as a > valid flag. This is also needed for userspace. Good point, I missed that. > On a related note, should we move ACL4_MASKED and ACL4_POSIX_MAPPED to > be the higher bits ? That would make sure we will be able to accomodate > new flag value NFSv4 define. That makes sense, except that ACL4_POSIX_MAPPED hasn't entered the scene in the patches posted here, and I'm still not convinced that we'll actually need it. Thanks, Andreas