On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Tim Kientzle <t...@kientzle.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Shawn Webb wrote: > > I've just finished a patch to add recursive functionality to setfacl. > Before > > I officially submit it, I'd like a few suggestions on how to improve the > > patch. > > > > The part I'm worried about involves the #define directive at top. I'm not > > sure what ramifications using that define might have. I needed it for my > > remove_invalid_inherit() function to work. > > You should certainly not need > #define _ACL_PRIVATE > for any user-space utilities. What exactly is the > problem without that? > > Your approach to directory walking here > is a little simplistic. In particular, you're storing > every filename for the entire tree in memory, > which is a problem for large filesystems. > > It would be much better to refactor the code so that > the actual ACL update was in a function and then > recurse_directory should call that function for > each filename as it visited it. That will reduce > the memory requirements significantly. > > You should also take a look at fts(3). In particular, > you'll want to implement the BSD-standard > -L/-P/-H options, and fts(3) makes that much easier. > (-L always follows symlinks, -P never follows symlinks, > -H follows symlinks on the command line). > > Tim > > Great suggestions. I'll definitely look at implementing that functionality. As a side note, it looks like my setfacl patch segfaults on freebsd-current r218075 with the zpool v28 patchset applied. I wrote it on freebsd 8.2-RC3 with zpool v15. Thanks, Shawn _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
