xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v18 21/22] ext4: Add richacl support

To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 21/22] ext4: Add richacl support
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:18:54 -0700
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linux API <linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS Developers <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAHc6FU64SzTN23LMzGcPex=jRz_Euwb_CHrW=kX+A5sn8=SFSg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1456733847-17982-1-git-send-email-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> <1456733847-17982-22-git-send-email-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> <20160311142719.GG14808@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAHc6FU64SzTN23LMzGcPex=jRz_Euwb_CHrW=kX+A5sn8=SFSg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:02:33PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> +static inline int
> >> +ext4_acl_chmod(struct inode *inode, umode_t mode)
> >> +{
> >> +     if (IS_RICHACL(inode))
> >> +             return richacl_chmod(inode, inode->i_mode);
> >> +     return posix_acl_chmod(inode, inode->i_mode);
> >> +}
> >
> > Thi isn't ext4-specific and potentially duplicated in every caller.
> > Please provide this as a common helper.
> 
> This can go in neither fs.h nor posix_acl.h nor richacl.h unless we
> turn it into a macro, and I don't think we want to add a new header
> file for such extreme trivia.

I'd expect us to grow a few more of thos helper if we get the sharing
right (either a real common base object, or wrappers for anything
dealing with the acl pointers in the inode), so a new linux/acl.h
should be fine.

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