[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1OsyA1-0007Ct-KS@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:24:29 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, hch@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
adilger@....com, corbet@....net, neilb@...e.de, npiggin@...nel.dk,
hooanon05@...oo.co.jp, bfields@...ldses.org, miklos@...redi.hu,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, sfrench@...ibm.com,
philippe.deniel@....FR, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V19 00/15] Generic name to handle and open by handle syscalls
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:36:03 +0200, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
> > > Any update on this. Are you ok with syscall approach which is limitted to
> > > CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH ?
> >
> > My gut reaction is: "not another bunch of xattr syscalls!". It
> > doesn't feel right, this interface is too specialized to warrant a
> > full set of filesystem syscalls.
>
>
> Are you ok with rest of syscalls other than the handle based xattr one ?
No, not really. Only xattrs stand out from the rest as the "API that
shouldn't be" and adding more to that pile makes me feel especially
bad.
But xattrs aside, I still don't think we need another interface for
file handles that duplicates the existing filesystem APIs.
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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