[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160311140746.GC14808@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:07:46 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
chao2.yu@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 11/22] vfs: Cache base_acl objects in inodes
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:16AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> POSIX ACLs and richacls are both objects allocated by kmalloc() with a
> reference count which are freed by kfree_rcu(). An inode can either
> cache an access and a default POSIX ACL, or a richacl (richacls do not
> have default acls). To allow an inode to cache either of the two kinds
> of acls, introduce a new base_acl type and convert i_acl and
> i_default_acl to that type. In most cases, the vfs then doesn't care which
> kind of acl an inode caches (if any).
This base_acl object is pointless. I've asked in the past to have
a proper container for the ACLs in common code, but a union
of a refcount and a rcu head doesn't really fit that category.
But this points out that the f2fs folks really need a couple of
slaps on their hands. Not if generic funtionality doesn't
fit your needs you are not going to blindly copy and paste it,
please talk to find a solution instead of duplicating it.
Folks, please come up with a suggestion to get rid of f2fs_acl_clone,
f2fs_acl_create_masq and f2fs_acl_create ASAP.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists