Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:40:05 +0300 | From | Hans Reiser <> | Subject | Re: reiser4 (was Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface) |
| |
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 12:02 12/12/01, Hans Reiser wrote: > >> Anton Altaparmakov wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Hans Reiser wrote: >>> >>>> Anton Altaparmakov wrote: >>>> >>>>> Both MacOS and as of recently Windows do this kind of stuff, too, >>>>> and it >>>>> can't be long before Linux goes the same way, provided file systems >>>>> support the required features (i.e. EAs and/or named streams) so I >>>>> disagree with you this is only a compatibility thing. It might >>>>> start out >>>>> as one but it will find real world applications very quickly... >>>> >>>> I am not saying that the features of EAs are not useful, I am >>>> saying that I want to choose them individually for particular files. >>>> >>>> It could be so much better to have EDIBLE_PIZZA (example from >>>> previous email) instead of just PIZZA, sigh. >>> >>> >>> I am not quite sure what you mean. Surely you can just have all >>> features >>> available at all times/to all files and then you just use the ones you >>> want, just ignoring/not using the rest. Why do you see the need for >>> "selecting features of EAs individually for particular files"? It makes >>> sense when buying EDIBLE_PIZZA but I don't see how that can be >>> transferred >>> onto files. After all I can just have all pizza ingredients and only >>> put >>> the ones I want on the pizza just ignoring the others. >> >> Inheriting stat data from the parent directory should be a feature >> available not just for streams, but for all files that want it. >> Efficient small file access to a 32 byte file should be a feature >> available to all files, not just EAs. Not being listed in readdir >> should be a feature available to all files, not just EAs. >> Constraining what is written to them should be a feature available to >> all files, not just EAs, and arbitrary plugin based constraints >> should be possible. >> >> Is this more clear? > > > Yes it is, thanks. And yes it makes sense. But this is talking about > files as a whole and has nothing to do with EAs as such (but it would > obviously apply to EAs, too under your proposed API).
There would be no need for EAs if files as a whole could have these properties, as EAs would just be particular files with particular properties within a directory/file object.
> > > I will be looking forward to seeing this stuff implemented. (-: > > Anton > >
If Linux users get really unlucky, which seems likely, :-/, 2.6 will take as long as 2.4, in which case I think we will complete the task in plenty of time for 2.6, and we can ask Linus which implementation he prefers before he has committed to one in a stable release.
Hans
- 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/
| |