On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:42:42AM +0100, Olaf Fraczyk wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 08:06, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:20:52AM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> > > ACLs are also available for even many virtual FS in 2.6 now, with many
> > > backports going to 2.4 for bugfixes, etc. Since ACLs are part of the XFS
> > > code-base, I'd imagine they'd come along. Christoph?
> > I don't think adding ACL support to 2.4 makes sense at this stage.
> As XFS has ACL support out of the box, I think that most XFS users use
> them. It means (at least for me) that I need to patch the kernel anyway.
> Just some additional work for end-user.
> As the patches are trivial (they say so :) it would be nice to have them
I think Chrostoph's point is XFS is the ONLY filesystem in 2.4 which
actually supports ACLs, ext2/3 require patches (perhaps significant i
haven't checked if they even support xattr in 2.4).
it was hard enough getting the absolute mandatory fixes in to support
XFS, much less an optional feature.
the acl patch only affects one vfs file, in only 3 small places
unlikly to be touched by anyone else, so merging it with just about
any kernel tree should be no harder then a single patch -p1 command.
I agree it would be nice, but i just don't see it happening
unfortunatly, for mostly political reasons. fortunatly this one
doesn't matter that much since its so much easier to merge and
maintain on the user's side (compared to the entire XFS patchset).
Description: PGP signature