From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 11/22] vfs: Cache base_acl objects in inodes Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:12:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20160315071256.GD19747@infradead.org> References: <1456733847-17982-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <1456733847-17982-12-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <20160311140746.GC14808@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux NFS Mailing List , Theodore Ts'o , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, Linux API , Trond Myklebust , LKML , XFS Developers , Christoph Hellwig , chao2.yu@samsung.com, Andreas Dilger , Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel , jaegeuk@kernel.org, Jeff Layton , linux-ext4 , Anna Schumaker To: Andreas Gruenbacher Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 05:24:45PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > POSIX ACLs and RichACLs are different objects, with different members > and different algorithms operating on them. The only commonality is > that they are both kmalloc()ed, reference counted objects, and when an > inode is destroyed, both kinds of ACLs can be put in the same way, > avoiding an unnecessary if. What kind of common-code container beyond > that are you still dreaming about? We still have a main object that is simply a list of ACEs. But if that doesn't work out (I suspect it should) I don't think the common base object is a good idea. It just leads to a lot of crazy container_of calls. If the common object abstraction doesn't work out we'll need a procedural one instead that has common acl_* calls that decide what do to based on the file system acl flag. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs