From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH -V5 00/24] New ACL format for better NFSv4 acl interoperability Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:58:47 -0500 Message-ID: <20110302185847.GA3524@fieldses.org> References: <1298469131-16555-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110228211145.GG28617@thunk.org> <87oc5vgwqr.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110302154943.GB29136@fieldses.org> <87ei6pza5v.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ted Ts'o , sfrench-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, agruen-63ez5xqkn6DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, dilger.kernel-m1MBpc4rdrD3fQ9qLvQP4Q@public.gmane.org, sandeen-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-ext4-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ei6pza5v.fsf-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:17:56PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:49:43 -0500, "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:20:36PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:11:45 -0500, "Ted Ts'o" wrote: > > > > Hi Aneesh, > > > > > > > > What is the current status of this patch series? I seem to remember > > > > that Christoph and Al Viro had some objections; have those been > > > > cleared yet? If not, can you summarize what their objections are? > > > > > > The main objection raised was the use of may_delete and may_create inode > > > operations callback. They are gone now and we have MAY_* flags as > > > favoured by Al Viro. The new MAY_* flags added are > > > > > > #define MAY_CREATE_FILE 128 > > > #define MAY_CREATE_DIR 256 > > > #define MAY_DELETE_CHILD 512 > > > #define MAY_DELETE_SELF 1024 > > > #define MAY_TAKE_OWNERSHIP 2048 > > > #define MAY_CHMOD 4096 > > > #define MAY_SET_TIMES 8192 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be honest I haven't been paying super close attention to this patch > > > > series, and I'm curious what needs to happen with it one way or > > > > another. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO we are ready to get first 11 patches upstream in the next merge > > > window. ie the below set of patches. > > > > Why aren't all of them ready? > > > > All except how to enable richacl in local file system is ready. I > actually floated two ideas in the patch series > > 1) mount option > 2) Ext4 compat flags. The choice of ACL format is a persistant property of the filesystem, not of a single mount of the filesystem: for example, people can't try out richacls for one mount and then decide to revert bacak to posix acls. (Right?) So I'm assuming we should use the latter--but I don't understand what ext4 compat flags are.... Is there some disadvantage to using them? --b. > > If we can get to decide which one, then the entire set can go in. We also > want others to review the richacl format. If that cannot be completed by > next merge window there is no reason to prevent the vfs changes from > going in. VFS changes are independent of richacl format. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html