[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxjqsm2h6N9qdOO2BxwOnnkY1KQCmDa6Ba8xPC0JGCVUiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 10:19:39 +0300
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc: Oleksij Rempel <ore@...gutronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> Am 24.04.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>>> So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)
>>
>> I'll not do it for you. ;)
>
> Please also see http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2
>
Richard,
Considering the facts that:
1. I proposed the said flag and Al didn't think it was needed [1]
2. ext4 already sets s_uuid without any flag for a long time now
3. A similar patch was queued for v4.12 to set s_uuid for xfs without any flag
I think it would be right to take Oleksij's patch as is.
FYI, my current work on 'constant inode numbers for overlayfs' requires that
underlying filesystem had set a non-zero s_uuid. Not sure if that matters for
ubifs+overlayfs users.
Amir.
[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-unionfs&m=149352864527985&w=2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists