Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:00:06 -0600 From: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@iteration.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, mckusick@FreeBSD.org, jedgar@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: First round review request, ACLs for UFS commit Message-ID: <20010320000006.C43637@peorth.iteration.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010319235727.69303E-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from rwatson@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 12:10:57AM -0500 References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010319235727.69303E-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 12:10:57AM -0500, Robert Watson scribbled: | For the past few months, we (Chris Faulhaber and myself) have been Great work guys! I think the code that you guys produces is very well written and commented. :) Now I know why there are so few responses to your request for reviews. Your (pl.) code is impeccable. | The most recent revision of the ACL code is 0.6.1, available for download | http://www.TrustedBSD.org/downloads/ Just a small question after reading the latest patch. You don't seem to handle the case where the user forgets that he is not mounting a ACL'ed filesystem and expecting ACL's to work. There seems to be a default fallback to old behavior. Is this necessarily good? i.e. Should we have a default set of ACL's instead? Secondly, how does this affect the performance of the filesystem? Also, there are no man pages that I see. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | keichii@iteration.net | keichii@freebsd.org | | http://iteration.net/~keichii | Yes, BSD is a conspiracy. | +-----------------------------------------------------------+ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010320000006.C43637>