[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxjoxYiJoPicoJemRX5YgxWgLGSwanZqKSa++p7TdHh8Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:50:36 +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 Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> Amir,
>
> Am 09.05.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Amir Goldstein:
>>> Then we can queue this patch for 4.13.
>>> Please resend and make sure it addresses everything what was also
>>> suggested for the xfs s_uuid patch.
>>>
>>
>> Just to be clear, the xfs s_uuid patch is just a memcpy,
>> no different from Oleksij's patch.
See upstream commit
8f720d9 xfs: publish UUID in struct super_block
>
> Wasn't there a huge discussion about LE/BE/uniqueness and more details
> on UUID that hurt my brain.
>
LE/BE discussions are more about which variants of uuid helpers should be
created, among other things, for consumers of s_uuid to check that s_uuid
was filled by fs.
Converting s_uuid type to uuid_t or whatever is for the far future.
uniqueness of s_uuid does not exist with current filesystems,
so no reason whatsoever to act differently with ubifs.
Fixing uniqueness of s_uuid (if at all is needed) is a future VFS task.
Bottom line, for Oleksij's original patch:
Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
If it's not too late for 4.12 that could be nice, because then
ubifs+overlayfs would gain a new feature (constant inode numbers)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists