![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Please don't do it this way. By making the xattr handlers constant for > a superblock's lifetime you can get rid of all the locking, and the arbitrary > limit on the number of xattrs. Then you can't dynamically regsiter an xattr handler (e.g. as a module). Is this really desirable? > Also s/simple_// for most symbols as this stuff isn't simple, in fact it's > quite complex :) Removing the prefix would imply that this was the 'proper' way to implement xattr support. Really, these are just helper functions for the simplest xattr implementations. I think they should have some prefix, but don't care too much what it actually is. Suggestions? - James -- James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com> - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||