Re: [PROPOSAL] Extended attributes for Posix security extensions

[Ragnar Kj�rstad]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:21:22PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> I also _really_ don't like different EA families to have different
> semantics (some with atomicity some not, some with ordering some not,
> etc.) That's plain ugly with no guarantees that this more powerful
> interface will provide what's needed. The most extreme case (I think I
> begin to see where you were heading in the first place) would be to have a
> separate family for each single EA. That would be separate system calls
> disguised as one.

If you look at the EA families as flags describing the properties for
the EA (atomicity, ordering, [inheritence]), I think it makes perfect
sence. Though, maybe it would be better to actually use flags, as it
scales better with more dimensions.

If so, the names of the families should reflect the properties, not what
they can be used for, (though, maybe it would be better to actually use
flags, as it scales better with more dimensions) and it is important that 
all (most) linux filesystems support the same families/properties/flags.


-- 
Ragnar Kj�rstad
Big STorage
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]