Re: [PATCH][1/7] xattr consolidation - libfs

[James Morris]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> Please don't do it this way.  By making the xattr handlers constant for
> a superblock's lifetime you can get rid of all the locking, and the arbitrary
> limit on the number of xattrs.

Then you can't dynamically regsiter an xattr handler (e.g. as a module).  
Is this really desirable?

> Also s/simple_// for most symbols as this stuff isn't simple, in fact it's
> quite complex :)

Removing the prefix would imply that this was the 'proper' way to
implement xattr support.  Really, these are just helper functions for the 
simplest xattr implementations.  I think they should have some prefix, but 
don't care too much what it actually is.  Suggestions?


- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/