From: Andreas Gruenbacher Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 11/22] vfs: Cache base_acl objects in inodes Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:31:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1456733847-17982-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <1456733847-17982-12-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <20160311140746.GC14808@infradead.org> <20160315071256.GD19747@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Alexander Viro , "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux NFS Mailing List , "Theodore Ts'o" , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, Linux API , Trond Myklebust , LKML , XFS Developers , Andreas Dilger , linux-fsdevel , Jeff Layton , linux-ext4 , Anna Schumaker , jaegeuk@kernel.org, chao2.yu@samsung.com To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com ([209.85.213.50]:35321 "EHLO mail-vk0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932524AbcCPWbj (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:31:39 -0400 Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id e6so80627439vkh.2 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:31:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160315071256.GD19747@infradead.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. There are two such container_of calls for POSIX ACLs in fs/jffs2/acl.c [which could be replaced by get_acl()], two in fs/posix_acl.c for POSIX ACLs, and two in fs/richacl.c for RichACLs. That's it. > 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. I've already made such abstractions where it made sense; if you can find more, I don't see why we shouldn't add them. Thanks, Andreas