On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 08:11:13PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> Hi,
hello.
> I'm probably barking up the wrong tree, but I was wondering
> if there were any issues that would prevent Ted's ext ACLs
[ Giving credit where its due - Andreas Gruenbacher implemented
all of this code (afaik) ]
> from co-existing with XFS's ACLs. My base kernel is 2.5.43
No there are no issues. The current implementations were
designed to coexist and much work was done in conjunction.
> checked out from the XFS cvs tree as of this afternoon.
> Ted's patches went in pretty cleanly [required cleaning the
> fs/config.{help|in} for dupes] except for one part in
> include/linux/fs.h:
>
> He has assigned the bitvector (1<<16) to the macro
> MS_POSIXACL whereas you have assigned an explicit value.
Its the same value though, right? ...
(gdb) p 1 << 16
$1 = 65536
65536 is consistent with the other MS_* flags declarations.
> Will it cause problems for XFS's ACLs if I replace the
> explicit value with the bitvector?
nope.
> Or is this just 32bit vs
> 64bit stuff I need not worry about (since I'm on ia32)?
no, thats not an issue here.
cheers.
--
Nathan
|