[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070806141333.0f54ab17.jlayton@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:13:33 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
codalist@...EMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, zippel@...ux-m68k.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, joel.becker@...cle.com, wli@...omorphy.com,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, jffs-dev@...s.com,
user-mode-linux-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
bfennema@...con.csc.calpoly.edu
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 01/25] VFS: move attr_kill logic from
notify_change into helper function
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:43:46 +0200
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> > Separate the handling of the local ia_valid bitmask from the one in
> > attr->ia_valid. This allows us to hand off the actual handling of the
> > ATTR_KILL_* flags to the .setattr i_op when one is defined.
> >
> > notify_change still needs to process those flags for the local ia_valid
> > variable, since it uses that to decide whether to return early, and to pass
> > a (hopefully) appropriate bitmask to fsnotify_change.
>
> I agree with this change and fuse will make use of it as well.
>
> Maybe instead of unconditionally moving attr_kill_to_mode() inside
> ->setattr() it could be made conditional based on an inode flag
> similarly to S_NOCMTIME. Advantages:
>
> - no need to modify a lot of in-tree filesystems
> - no silent breakage of out-of-tree fs
>
> Actually I think the new flag would be used by exacly the same
> filesystems as S_NOCMTIME, so maybe it would make sense to rename
> S_NOCMTIME to something more generic (S_NOATTRUPDATE or whatever) and
> use that.
>
> But that could still break out-of-tree fs, so a separate flag is
> probably better.
>
In the past I've been told that adding new flags is something of a
"last resort". Since it's not strictly necessary to fix this then
it may be best to avoid that.
That said, if the concensus is that we need a transition mechanism,
then I'd be open to such a suggestion.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists