On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:01:19AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Dave Chinner [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 08:45:40PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
After that the wire up should be so trivial that you can wire up btrfs,
xfs and f2fs as well, which is important to make the feature mergeable.
Why would the patch queue become more mergeable by having support for
more filesystems in it? The filesystem specific code really isn't all
that interesting.
The hardest part for the filesystem support is the on-disk feature
flag that needs to be set. The kernel part of that is easy, but it's
an on-disk format change and so there's also all the userspace side
for mkfs, fsck, debug tools, etc, that also need to be able to parse
and understand it. So while the xattr code can be made much more
generic, there's a bunch of filesystem specific code that needs to
go into multiple different repositories and userspace packages for
this.
Yes.
quoted
Andreas, I also can't remember if any xfstests have been written for
these ACLs? That would certainly help make sure all these
filesystems have equivalent behaviour...
There's a reasonable amount of tests in the richacl user-space package
which are shell based, with a few small C helpers. We could move those
into xfstests eventually; now seems a bit early to me.
Well, all the fs developers that will do the userspace work are
already running xfstests. If you want us to be able to test the
richACL code as we add all the fs specific flags to the userspace
code, then we need the tests in xfstests at the same time the
infrastructure appears in the kernel...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david-FqsqvQoI3Ljby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org
--
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