On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:26:52PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:38:53PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 05:50:47AM -0400, TJ Easter wrote:
> > > Anyone know if there are plans to impliment the immutable/append-only
> > > options?
> >
> > a couple monthes ago Steve said it looked like it would be pretty easy
> > to do, and without breaking backward compatibilty (since older
> > implementations would simply ignore the bits). he just doesn't really
> > have time, someone with a little experience in the XFS code could
> > probably do it though.
> >
> > immutable, append-only, and the S (sync) bits would be the useful ones.
>
> 'D' for directories is quite useful too, because some mail servers
> assume that everybody has synchronous rename() like traditional BSD FFS.
your thinking S which can be applied to both files and directories.
there is no chattr +D at least in my version of it.
> 'd' (don't dump) should be also simple and useful.
xfs already honors an extended attribute for files only, the
maintainers believe that honoring such a thing for directories is evil.
> and of course 'u' if it was implemented (probably a bit more work)
> would clear a major FAQ item on this list.
not even ext2 supports u.
--
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
pgpzAprL9DlJP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|