[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <813e1b65-e6ba-631c-6506-f356738c477f@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:51:59 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To: dsterba@...e.cz, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>,
Li Guifu <bluce.liguifu@...wei.com>,
Fang Wei <fangwei1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 11/24] erofs: introduce xattr & posixacl support
On 2019-9-2 21:06, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 05:57:11AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> +config EROFS_FS_XATTR
>>> + bool "EROFS extended attributes"
>>> + depends on EROFS_FS
>>> + default y
>>> + help
>>> + Extended attributes are name:value pairs associated with inodes by
>>> + the kernel or by users (see the attr(5) manual page, or visit
>>> + <http://acl.bestbits.at/> for details).
>>> +
>>> + If unsure, say N.
>>> +
>>> +config EROFS_FS_POSIX_ACL
>>> + bool "EROFS Access Control Lists"
>>> + depends on EROFS_FS_XATTR
>>> + select FS_POSIX_ACL
>>> + default y
>>
>> Is there any good reason to make these optional these days?
>
> I objected against adding so many config options, not to say for the
> standard features. The various cache strategies or other implementation
> details have been removed but I agree that making xattr/acl configurable
> is not necessary as well.
I can see similar *_ACL option in btrfs/ext4/xfs, should we remove them as well
due to the same reason?
Thanks,
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists