On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 11:08:52PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In article <p73aduwddni.fsf@oldwotan.suse.de> you wrote:
> > "Most times". For example the EA patches have badly failed so far, just because
> > Linus ignored all patches to add sys call numbers for a repeatedly discussed
> > and stable API and nobody else can add syscall numbers on i386.
>
> There still seems to be a lot of discussion vs EAs and ACLs.
At least the last l-k discussion ended in relative conclusion as far as
I remember (only disagreement was from someone wanting to implement them
in sys_reiser4)
> Setting the suboptimal XFS APIs in stone doesn't make the discussion
> easier.
The presented APIs were not the XFS APIs, but a significantly revised
version, based on a mix of ext2-acl and XFS and some new changes.
See http://acl.bestbits.at/man/extattr.2.html and
http://acl.bestbits.at/man/extattr.5.html
If you think anything is badly "suboptimal" proposal you should have stated
your criticism.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:07 EST