[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100707015530.GE25018@dastard>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 11:55:30 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rearrange i_flags to be consistent with FS_IOC_GETFLAGS
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 12:45:25AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd prefer generic flags are not dependent on fixed values from a
> > specific filesystem several layers down the storage stack.
>
> They're not so dependent.
History says otherwise. :)
> They're based on the FS_IOC_[GS]ETFLAGS ioctl which
> even XFS translates its flags for.
Sure, because the ioctl flags values are derived
from the ext2 on-disk format flags and hence don't match anything
XFS related at all.
> These ioctl flags must now remain
> invariant. Whilst they might have originated as Ext2/3/4 flags, they're now
> independent of that.
Yes, the ioctl flags must remain invariant. OTOH, the generic inode
flags (S_*) have no such invariant requirement and have a history of
frequent change. IMO, that means some flags should not be tied to
the value of a specific subsystem just so a subsystem specific
optimisation can be made. It just seems like a dangerous layering
violation to be making...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.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