Hi Andy,
2016-06-23 18:37 GMT+02:00 Weston Andros Adamson :
>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
>> wrote:
>> Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of
>> "system.nfs4_acl".
>>
>> The "system.nfs4_acl" xattr nfs uses directly exposes the on-the-wire format
>>
> First, let me say thanks for all the work! We (Primary Data) have been using
> samba with the vfs_richacl module reexporting an nfsv4.2 mount and things
> are working pretty well. You can count on us for testing, bug fixing and code
> review.
>
> Now for my question: It looks like this call to r
> On Apr 24, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
> wrote:
>
> Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of
> "system.nfs4_acl".
>
> The "system.nfs4_acl" xattr nfs uses directly exposes the on-the-wire format
> of
> NFSv4's acl attribute to user space. This has at least two
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Andreas Grünbacher
wrote:
> 2015-05-29 17:24 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust :
>>> It seems unreasonable to me to expect applications other than special file
>>> system maintenance tools to cater to such file system differences; there are
>>> just too many file systems
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andreas Grünbacher
> wrote:
> > 2015-05-29 15:15 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust
> :
> >> [reply reordered]
> >> So having revisited the reasons why I chose the system.nfs4_acl
> >> interface when we did NFSv4 ACLs, I'm not sure we should implement
> >> system.richacl
2015-05-29 17:24 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust :
>> It seems unreasonable to me to expect applications other than special file
>> system maintenance tools to cater to such file system differences; there are
>> just too many file systems out there for that to work. Instead, it
>> would be better
>> to u
Adding linux-api...
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andreas Grünbacher
wrote:
> 2015-05-29 15:15 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust :
>> [reply reordered]
>> So having revisited the reasons why I chose the system.nfs4_acl
>> interface when we did NFSv4 ACLs, I'm not sure we should implement
>> system.ri
2015-05-29 15:15 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust :
> [reply reordered]
> So having revisited the reasons why I chose the system.nfs4_acl
> interface when we did NFSv4 ACLs, I'm not sure we should implement
> system.richacl for the NFS client at all.
>
> Your assertion that "when symbolic user@domain and
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Trond Myklebust
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
> wrote:
>> Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of
>> "system.nfs4_acl".
>>
>
> NACK.
>
> You may declare a userspace syscall ABI that is more than 10 years old
>
2015-05-29 1:06 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust :
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
> wrote:
>> Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of
>> "system.nfs4_acl".
>>
>
> NACK.
>
> You may declare a userspace syscall ABI that is more than 10 years old
> to be depreca
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
wrote:
> Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of
> "system.nfs4_acl".
>
NACK.
You may declare a userspace syscall ABI that is more than 10 years old
to be deprecated, but you are not allowed to remove it.
Furthermore, yo
11 matches
Mail list logo