Re: [RFC 5/8] xattr: Add per-inode xattr handlers as a new inode operation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RFC 5/8] xattr: Add per-inode xattr handlers as a new inode operation

Al Viro-4
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:45:15AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> Per-inode xattr handlers allow to mark inodes as bad and dirs as "empty"
> in the usual way even when using generic_getxattr, generic_setxattr, and
> generic_removexattr.  This brings us one step closer to getting rid of
> the getxattr, setxattr, and removexattr inode operations.

This is an amazingly convoluted way of doing things.  First of all, "empty"
case is not interesting - they might as well have used generic_...xattr for
the filesystem using them.  And bad_inode... I'd rather have that checked
in generic_getxattr() et.al.  I mean, explicit
        if (unlikely(is_bad_inode(inode)))
                return -EIO;
        ... go using ->i_sb->s_xattr
in there won't cost more than your variant and it avoids having a flag
misguised as a pointer to secondary method table in every inode_operations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
--
fuse-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or subscribe, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel