[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:05:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
codalist@...EMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
zippel@...ux-m68k.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wli@...omorphy.com,
joel.becker@...cle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, jffs-dev@...s.com,
user-mode-linux-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
bfennema@...con.csc.calpoly.edu
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 00/25] move handling of setuid/gid bits from
VFS into individual setattr functions (RESEND)
On Aug 8 2007 09:48, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:54:03 -0400
>> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Is there any way in which we can prevent these problems? Say
>> >
>> > - rename something so that unconverted filesystems will reliably fail to
>> > compile?
>> >
>>
>> I suppose we could rename the .setattr inode operation to something
>> else, but then we'll be stuck with it for at least a while. That seems
>> sort of kludgey too...
>
>Sure. We're changing the required behaviour of .setattr. Changing its
>name is a fine and reasonably reliable way to communicate that fact.
Maybe ->chattr/->chgattr?
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists