| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfsdump recursive exclusion attribute |
| From: | Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:27:59 -0800 |
| In-reply-to: | <20020614172348.GB2603@widomaker.com>; from shannon@widomaker.com on Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:23:50PM -0400 |
| Mail-copies-to: | nobody |
| Mail-followup-to: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20020611111728.33525a97.ivanr@sgi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0206110918350.3052-100000@quasar.sif.it> <20020611012632.F9152@plato.local.lan> <20020614172348.GB2603@widomaker.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:23:50PM -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote: > > For many systems, especially those which lack large tape backup systems, > tree level exclusion is a necessity. that does not mean it needs to be done via an extended attribute. > > i think ext2/3 only allow the file owner to set chattr flags like > > nodump, so for directories assuming xfs wanted to support this (in the > > ext2 manner) would need to invent a new system.something namespace just > > for this, that involves kernel bloat. > > XFS is already huge kernel bloat, so a few more K isn't going to matter. thats a terribly foolish attitude, and will ensure XFS would never go into the mainline kernel. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Where is the 2.4.19-pre9 or 10 patch?, Stuart Luppescu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Where is the 2.4.19-pre9 or 10 patch?, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfsdump recursive exclusion attribute, Charles Shannon Hendrix |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfsdump recursive exclusion attribute, Charles Shannon Hendrix |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |