Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
We agree on this, I have no opposition to NTFS checking size of files
used to store EAs and rejecting any write more than 64k
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
I was just stating a fact of how they are stored on NTFS, again something
I have no power to change.
But does NTFS specificism/cripplism belong in VFS?
No, of course not. But the vfs needs to be able to cope with limitations
of specific file systems (even if it is only by passing -Exyz into
Inheriting stat data from the parent directory should be a feature
available not just for streams, but for all files that want it.
Efficient small file access to a 32 byte file should be a feature
available to all files, not just EAs. Not being listed in readdir
should be a feature available to all files, not just EAs. Constraining
what is written to them should be a feature available to all files, not
just EAs, and arbitrary plugin based constraints should be possible.
I am not saying that the features of EAs are not useful, I am saying
that I want to choose them individually for particular files.
Well, gosh, okay, maybe you want to prepend ',,' to streams and '..' to
extended attributes. I personally think Linux would only want to do so
when used as a fileserver emulating NTFS/SAMBA. There is no enhancement
of user functionality from doing it for general purpose filesystems.
Just wait until this functionality is available and watch all GUI things
start to use it en masse! I don't doubt that GNOME/KDE/replace with your
favourite window manager are going to hesitate to start putting in the
icon, the name, and whatnot inside EAs or inside named streams the instant
they are ubiquitously available and I think that makes a lot of sense too.
No doubt I will get flamed for saying this but all flames go to
Both MacOS and as of recently Windows do this kind of stuff, too, and it
can't be long before Linux goes the same way, provided file systems
support the required features (i.e. EAs and/or named streams) so I
disagree with you this is only a compatibility thing. It might start out
as one but it will find real world applications very quickly...
It could be so much better to have EDIBLE_PIZZA (example from previous
email) instead of just PIZZA, sigh.
I am not quite sure what you mean. Surely you can just have all features
available at all times/to all files and then you just use the ones you
want, just ignoring/not using the rest. Why do you see the need for
"selecting features of EAs individually for particular files"? It makes
sense when buying EDIBLE_PIZZA but I don't see how that can be transferred
onto files. After all I can just have all pizza ingredients and only put
the ones I want on the pizza just ignoring the others.
Is this more clear?