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

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:32:13AM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> > limit on the number of xattrs.
> 
> Then you can't dynamically regsiter an xattr handler (e.g. as a module).  
> Is this really desirable?

IMHO yes.  This is an integral part of the filesystem, and the handlers are
really small anyway.  And it makes the code really a lot simpler.

> 
> > 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?

I'd call them generic_.  I've done some research and they should work very
well for any xattr implementation in the tree.  As I mentioned in the
previous mail I'd like to get rid of the old inode operations for xattrs
completely in the long-term (I had been researching this before your patch
because I wanted to get rid of the access control checks in the filesystem
that are inherent with theses)

-
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/