[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22523.1448553683@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:01:23 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, arnd@...db.de, linux-afs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] statx: Provide IOC flags for Windows fs attributes
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> > As a result, I would suggest that we not try to use the
> > FS_IOC_[GS]ETFLAGS number scheme for any new interface, so we're at
> > least not making a bad situation worse.
> >
> > The only reason why some other file systems have chosen to use
> > FS_IOC_[GS]ETFLAGS, instead of defining their own ioctl, is so they
> > can use lsattr/chattr from e2fsprogs instead of creating their own
> > utility. But for statx, there isn't a good reason use the same flags
> > number space. At the very least, can we use a new flags field for the
> > Windows file attributes? It's not like lsattr/chattr has the ability
> > to set those flags today anyway. So we might as well use a new flags
> > field and a new flags numberspace for them.
>
> Hmmm... I was trying to make it so that these bits would be saved to disk as
> part of the IOC flags so that Samba could make use of them. I guess they'll
> have to be stored in an xattr instead.
Or as Dave Chinner suggested, I can put them elsewhere and let the FS deal
with them in its own way.
David
--
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