> For the large xattr case, it would actually point to an inode that > would work just like a normal file.
This makes me nervous, maybe we should talk about this point in more detail. I don't like the idea of bringing all the per-file posix api nonsense in the inode (i_uid, i_mode, etc) just so that xattrs can store data. I guess I'm hoping for structures with a finer granularity than that. I care because of the unfun time I had with fsck.ocfs2. It has to jump through hoops to figure out when certain fields in an inode could be ignored or not based on what that internal "inode" (sometimes only a few fields!) was really being used for. - z _______________________________________________ Btrfs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/btrfs-devel
