From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B6CC3A5A5 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:31:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D7422CF8 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:31:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726743AbfICGbJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Sep 2019 02:31:09 -0400 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32]:34858 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725888AbfICGbJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Sep 2019 02:31:09 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS414-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7037E8B6A2F31DF55807; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:31:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.134.22.195] (10.134.22.195) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:30:56 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 11/24] erofs: introduce xattr & posixacl support To: , Chao Yu , Christoph Hellwig , Gao Xiang , , , Alexander Viro , LKML , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , Theodore Ts'o , Pavel Machek , Amir Goldstein , "Darrick J . Wong" , "Dave Chinner" , Jaegeuk Kim , Jan Kara , Richard Weinberger , Linus Torvalds , , Miao Xie , Li Guifu , Fang Wei References: <20190815044155.88483-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com> <20190815044155.88483-12-gaoxiang25@huawei.com> <20190902125711.GA23462@infradead.org> <20190902130644.GT2752@suse.cz> <813e1b65-e6ba-631c-6506-f356738c477f@kernel.org> <20190902142037.GW2752@twin.jikos.cz> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <12d37c63-dd0e-04fb-91f8-f4b930e867e5@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:30:55 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190902142037.GW2752@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On 2019/9/2 22:20, David Sterba wrote: > Oh right, I think the reasons are historical and that we can remove the > options nowadays. From the compatibility POV this should be safe, with > ACLs compiled out, no tool would use them, and no harm done when the > code is present but not used. > > There were some efforts by embedded guys to make parts of kernel more > configurable to allow removing subsystems to reduce the final image > size. In this case I don't think it would make any noticeable > difference, eg. the size of fs/btrfs/acl.o on release config is 1.6KiB, > while the whole module is over 1.3MiB. Actually, btrfs's LOC is about 20 times larger than erofs's, acl part's LOC could be very small one in btrfs. EROFS can be slimmed about 10% size if we disable XATTR/ACL config, which is worth to keep that, at least for now. Thanks,