jeff.liu wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for your so detailed instruction! And sorry for my later response, I > just back from travel. > > Could you please check my comments inline? ...
This is the most important point: >> [*] This change is intended to be an optimization. >> I am leery of letting an optimization change the semantics of a >> program like chmod (which is already very efficient), even if only >> for the unusual case of a bind-mounted ACL-possessing non-directory >> that resides on an NFS-mounted file system. >> Other opinions? Considering that this optimization is possible only if we agree to degrade (even by only a small amount) chmod's correctness, I am inclined to drop it. No one disagreed.
