[Top] [All Lists]

Re: to compare journalised file systems

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: to compare journalised file systems
From: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:15:24 -0800
In-reply-to: <20021017000400.B21179@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-copies-to: nobody
Mail-followup-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20021016085626.GB27982@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210160549420.966-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021016203853.GH27982@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021016232652.A14553@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021016215043.GJ27982@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021017000400.B21179@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:04:00AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > xfs already honors an extended attribute for files only, the
> > maintainers believe that honoring such a thing for directories is evil.
> If 'the maintainers' really said such a thing then I disagree with
> the maintainers. Honoring it for directories should be fine and I can
> think of applications for it.

fine look up the list archives if you don't believe me.  when the
change was first commited Ivan used the word evil specifically when
referring to nodump on dirs.  there was a more detailed discussion a
few monthes later, thier concern appears primarily security.

> > not even ext2 supports u.
> And? Is XFS only limited to things ext2 supports?

no but the original poster was asking about flags supported by ext2, u
is not one of them, and never has been.  for the purposes of getting
XFS on par with the flags ext2 supports u is not relevant.

Ethan Benson

Attachment: pgpmefFY9q0vj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>