Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:56:05 -0500 From: a134qaed@gmail.com To: "Tim Kientzle" <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Extattr portability? Message-ID: <bdf82f800901101456x57c1c1ecmba32e6af6f627622@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4968EF7E.5040002@freebsd.org> References: <4965927D.1060507@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901091525300.78432@fledge.watson.org> <bdf82f800901092341y2459b8bcyd706a6f9aabb47ea@mail.gmail.com> <4968EF7E.5040002@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/10/09, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> wrote: > Dylan Cochran wrote: >> > > Wonderful! Care to help test? Absolutely. > > There's still a lot of open questions about the system > namespace I'll have to figure out. Over on the GNU tar > mailing list, the Linux filesystem folks have been agitating > for GNU tar to support system extattrs that carry filesystem > layout hints. The portability issues with this make my > head hurt. Yea, I think in the end it's going to be inherently un-portable, as in some systems, the system attributes could be filesystem or kernel specific. And I can forsee some dangerous reprocussions (a collision on an attribute name in the system namespace, which on one system is just a tag, like 'page=23', but on another, it's interpreted as a flagged hint to the dynamic linker, on how to page in the file..... > > Tim >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bdf82f800901101456x57c1c1ecmba32e6af6f627622>