[taking this to bug-findutils]
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:40:05AM +0100, James Youngman wrote: > I'm not sure what the relative performance cost is of the functions > get_attr() and so forth. I would not be surprised to see that they > were about as fast as access(), perhaps a little slower. So I guess > this needs an entry in "enum EvaluationCost". Noted. > The ext2 filesystem also supports attributes on both Linux and Hurd. > If we are going to support extended attributes, it would be worth > designing it in such a way that the same predicate can (unambiguously) > be used for other types of extended attributes. I'm going to think about a good way of designing this. For the moment, I will stick with the NAME=VALUE syntax (only) for XFS-style attributes (which are the same as ReiserFS xattr and ext2/3 user_xattr), which shouldn't be a problem WRT ambiguity. The second type, by the way, are ext2/3 attributes (note the absence of 'extended' here). Maybe a second switch is warranted. Or a name change of 'xattr' -> 'attr'. I'm going to think about it, as I said :) > Lastly, I think this discussion should include the bug-findutils > mailing list, so that others can participate in the design process. > OK? I hope this effect will take place! :) Leslie -- NEW homepage: https://viridian.dnsalias.net/~sky/homepage/ gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys DD4EBF83
pgpcPzojSywTn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-findutils mailing list Bug-findutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-findutils
