Subject: Re: Support for ACLs
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Rick Kelly <email@example.com>
Date: 03/10/2001 18:19:41
Thor Lancelot Simon said:
>That said, I think we realy *do* have an issue that we add too much
>functionality without thinking about it hard enough, and that even when we
>attempt to do so in a modular way, we can't help penalizing our historical
>platforms for that modularity itself (calls through function pointers are
>NOT free, just as one obvious example applying to the kernel). There have
>been effective strategies for dealing with this in the past, but sadly they
>have never made it into mainstream kernels or even the toolchains that
>support them, which is a shame; see Synthesis and its use of code overlay
>and the superoptimizer, for example.
I still can't see a problem with having two separate FFS filesystems,
the current FFS filesystem and another, separate FFS filesystem that
also groks ACLs.
It's about choices.
Rick Kelly firstname.lastname@example.org www.rmkhome.com