On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 03:51:15AM +0200, Andreas GrÃnbacher wrote:
>> 2015-10-12 2:10 GMT+02:00 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > Also, I really dislike the API where passing a NULL acl means to
>> > "set this acl" actually means "remove the existing ACL". Why no
>> > ->remove_acl method called from the generic code?
>>
>> It's not uncommon, it saves inode operations and wiring-up code.
>
> I know it's common. All it does is put extra branches in the
> filesystem code to do this, because remove is a different operation
> to set. The API sucks, and we're not limited on inode operations,
> and the operator overloading makes the filesystem code unnecessarily
> complex as it has to detect when to branch out ot remove or not...
I've tried it out. The filesystem code could be simplified (see the
richacl-wip [*] branch until the next posting). Adding a
remove_richacl inode operation on top of that really doesn't help.
Thanks,
Andreas
[*] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/agruen/linux-richacl.git
richacl-wip
|