On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:27:26 -0500, David Masover <[email protected]> said:
> Kyle Moffett wrote:
>> I think the '...' is just a bad idea in general, because it breaks
>> tar and such. An interface like this might be simpler to design and
>> use:
>>
>> # mkdir /attr
>> # mount -t attrfs attrfs /attr
>>
>> /attr/fd/$FD_NUM == '...' directory for a filedescriptor
>> /attr/fs/$DEV_NUM/$INODE_NUM == '...' directory for an inode
The most obvious (at least obvious for me) complaint about this is that
the attributes are separate from the file. (In other words, it's a bit
ugly. ;-) ) So if you want to backup a file, along with all its
(extended) attributes (or substreams, or ... etc. ...), you need to
backup the file, and find the appropriate /attr/fs/$DEV_NUM/$INODE_NUM
and back that up. If I want to edit an attribute, I need to find
$DEV_NUM and $INODE_NUM (which I have no idea how to do), rather than
just "edit foo/.../extended_attribute". (Or using your "getattrpath"
command, it would be a two-step process -- run getattrpath, then run
editor -- rather than a one-step process. Of course, this is only
mildly annoying.)
It also exposes a difference between attributes and regular files.
e.g. can I add attributes to an attribute? (say, I have a thumbnail
attribute for the file ~/foo, and I want to add a mime-type attribute to
that thumbnail attribute.) If you want to allow it, you have to be
careful not to run into a big loop generating an infinite number of
inodes in the attrfs. (e.g.
/attr/fs/$(getattrpath /attr/fs/$(getattrpath ~/foo)/thumbnail)/mimetype
-- attrfs shouldn't generate the inode for that until
/attr/fs/$(getattrpath~/foo)/thumbnail is accessed, and maybe not even
then...)
That said, I prefer that interface over xattr or openat.
>> It would be usable from a shell with a simple "getattrpath" command
>> which returns "fs/$DEV_NUM/$INODE_NUM" by stat-ing any given path.
> Still pretty annoying, but maybe a good idea, especially if the shell
> gets extended to support it. Not sure I like using inode numbers,
> though -- I like the idea of being able to symlink to stuff inside the
> meta-file dir.
The advantage of using inodes rather than pathnames is that it is robust
with respect to file renaming/moving. It also allows things like
adding attributes to symlinks (since the inode number for a symlink is
different from the inode number for the file that it points to).
You can still symlink. It just takes a little more effort to figure out
what $DEV_NUM/$INODE_NUM to use.
> Actually, I like this. Give me some time to let it percolate.
> Hans, thoughts? Seems to be namespace fragmentation, but seems
> usable, less breakage, and so on. And should it be /attr or /meta?
For the mount point, it doesn't matter; it's up to the user. It's the
attrfs or metafs or ???fs that matters (but which will greatly influence
whether people user /attr or /meta).
--
Hubert Chan <[email protected]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
