On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:42:42AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Well, for people who are using these features, it is irrelevant whether
> you can configure them separately or not. However, for people who do
> not use these features, it is just more "bloat" that is being added to
> their kernel. Certainly the EA and ACL code have a noticable size, so
> having a config option can only be good for those users. Sure - make
> it default to "on" for people who don't know any better, but it is
> still nice to be able to tune things as needed (e.g. for a small box
> which needs a journaling fs, but not fancy features).
Well, the ACL code would be depend on CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL as in XFS and
JFS. We might want one XATTR config option for ext2/ext3 if this is a
real concern for people (it might be a good idea after thinking a bit
more about it). IMHO we should end up with one option for xattr support
in ext2, one for xattrs in ext3 and one for all filesystems for ACLs.
-
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 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:30 EST