On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:27:26 -0500, David Masover <ninja@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:Kyle Moffett wrote:
I think the '...' is just a bad idea in general, because it breaks
tar and such. An interface like this might be simpler to design and
use:
# mkdir /attr
# mount -t attrfs attrfs /attr
/attr/fd/$FD_NUM == '...' directory for a filedescriptor
/attr/fs/$DEV_NUM/$INODE_NUM == '...' directory for an inode
The most obvious (at least obvious for me) complaint about this is that
the attributes are separate from the file. (In other words, it's a bit
ugly. ;-) ) So if you want to backup a file, along with all its
(extended) attributes (or substreams, or ... etc. ...), you need to
backup the file, and find the appropriate /attr/fs/$DEV_NUM/$INODE_NUM
and back that up. If I want to edit an attribute, I need to find
$DEV_NUM and $INODE_NUM (which I have no idea how to do), rather than
just "edit foo/.../extended_attribute". (Or using your "getattrpath"
command, it would be a two-step process -- run getattrpath, then run
editor -- rather than a one-step process. Of course, this is only
mildly annoying.)
It also exposes a difference between attributes and regular files.
e.g. can I add attributes to an attribute? (say, I have a thumbnail
attribute for the file ~/foo, and I want to add a mime-type attribute to
that thumbnail attribute.) If you want to allow it, you have to be
careful not to run into a big loop generating an infinite number of
inodes in the attrfs. (e.g.
/attr/fs/$(getattrpath /attr/fs/$(getattrpath ~/foo)/thumbnail)/ mimetype
-- attrfs shouldn't generate the inode for that until
/attr/fs/$(getattrpath~/foo)/thumbnail is accessed, and maybe not even
then...)
That said, I prefer that interface over xattr or openat.
It would be usable from a shell with a simple "getattrpath" command
which returns "fs/$DEV_NUM/$INODE_NUM" by stat-ing any given path.
Still pretty annoying, but maybe a good idea, especially if the shell
gets extended to support it. Not sure I like using inode numbers,
though -- I like the idea of being able to symlink to stuff inside the
meta-file dir.
The advantage of using inodes rather than pathnames is that it is robust
with respect to file renaming/moving. It also allows things like
adding attributes to symlinks (since the inode number for a symlink is
different from the inode number for the file that it points to).
You can still symlink. It just takes a little more effort to figure out
what $DEV_NUM/$INODE_NUM to use.
Hans, thoughts? Seems to be namespace fragmentation, but seems
usable, less breakage, and so on. And should it be /attr or /meta?
For the mount point, it doesn't matter; it's up to the user. It's the
attrfs or metafs or ???fs that matters (but which will greatly influence
whether people user /attr or /meta).