[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1355971763-2348-1-git-send-email-dvhart@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:49:20 -0800
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Cc: tytso@....edu, adilger@...ger.ca, sgw@...ux.intel.com
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/3][RESEND] ext2fsprogs: Symlink support and doc fix
As we appear to have agreed that adding symlink support to debugfs via a new
ext2fs_symlink() function in libext2fs was something that needed doing, I
thought I'd use this as a trial run for my first contribution to the ext2fsprogs
package before I continue working on the larger project of completing initial
directory support for mke2fs.
While I modeled this patch after existing code, their were some inconcsistencies
in the code examples I used that I'd welcome input on. In particular:
o Should the ext2fs_link() happen right after ext2fs_new_inode()? Or should it
happen closer to the end of the operation? do_write() and ext2fs_mkdir()
handle this differently.
o Is it necessary to allocate the first block and assign it to the inode or the
extents? ext2fs_mkdir() does this, do_write() does not. I opted for the
simpler of the two and it passes my initial simple tests.
o Should I pass "mode" to ext2fs_new_inode() even though it is ignored?
o Would it make sense to try once to expand_dir rather than bailing out of
ext2fs_mkdir() and ext2fs_symlink() if the directory is full?
o What would we like the initial uid,gid,mode,*time values to be for
files/directories/links/etc. created with libext2fs?
Finally, I made an attempt to follow the coding style I observed in the code,
but if I missed something, please let me know.
Thanks,
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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