From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 02:49:35 -0700 Message-ID: <20151006094935.GA14144@infradead.org> References: <1443391772-10171-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <20151004062313.GA20212@infradead.org> <5612C85C.2060407@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher , Christoph Hellwig , Alexander Viro , Theodore Ts'o , Andreas Dilger , "J. Bruce Fields" , Jeff Layton , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-fsdevel , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org To: Austin S Hemmelgarn Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5612C85C.2060407@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 02:58:36PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > I think the point is that a new VFS feature that is easy to integrate in > multiple filesystems should have support for those filesystems. A decade > ago, just having ext* support would probably have been fine, but these days, > XFS, BTRFS, and F2FS are used just as much (if not more) on production > systems as ext4, and having support for them right from the start would > significantly help with adoption of richacls. That's one reason. The other is that actually wiring it up for more than a single consumer shows its actually reasonable generic. I don't want to end up with a situration like Posix ACLs again where different file systems using different on disk formats again.