Re: modify chmod

[jeff.liu]

Jim Meyering wrote:
> jeff.liu wrote:
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> jeff.liu wrote:
>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your so detailed instruction! And sorry for my later response, 
>>>> I just back from travel.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please check my comments inline?
>>> ...
>>>
>>> This is the most important point:
>>>
>>>>> [*] This change is intended to be an optimization.
>>>>> I am leery of letting an optimization change the semantics of a
>>>>> program like chmod (which is already very efficient), even if only
>>>>> for the unusual case of a bind-mounted ACL-possessing non-directory
>>>>> that resides on an NFS-mounted file system.
>>>>> Other opinions?
>>> Considering that this optimization is possible only
>>> if we agree to degrade (even by only a small amount)
>>> chmod's correctness, I am inclined to drop it.
>>>
>> so you means this optimization is acceptable only if we can ignore the 
>> correctness for the
>> bind-mounted files?
>> but you think it is no properly since it will affect the semantics of chmod?
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> That's right.
> If someone measures the performance difference and
> we find it compelling enough that we're willing to overlook
> the incorrectness with (admittedly rare) bind-mounted ACL-possessing
> non-directories, this might be worthwhile -- via a new option.
> It must not be the default, since it can constitute a real regression.

> 
> Chmod is typically quite fast, even for large hierarchies.
> Since the value of the performance improvement is less when
> enabled only via an option, it becomes harder to justify
> the added complexity.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your clarification.
I have learn a lot from your guys even if the patch does not acceptable after 
all.


Regards,
-Jeff