| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS filesystem setfacl has limitation? |
| From: | Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:16:13 +0100 |
| In-reply-to: | <20120307044242.GJ3592@dastard> |
| Organization: | Intellique |
| References: | <4F56C4D5.1070206@xxxxxxxxx> <20120307044242.GJ3592@dastard> |
Le Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:42:42 +1100 vous écriviez:
> It's basically a limitation of the on-disk format definition that
> has been carried over from Irix. It is an arbitrary limit - the real
> limit is the maximum size of an attribute (64KB) and we plan to
> raise it to that limit as part of the upcoming on-disk format
> changes for metadata checksums...
>
What's the proposed time frame or kernel version for this change?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac | Direction technique
| Intellique
| <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| +33 1 78 94 84 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 6/8] xfs: make xfs_inode_item_size idempotent, Ben Myers |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] default to 64 bit inodes & add feature flag, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS filesystem setfacl has limitation?, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS filesystem setfacl has limitation?, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |