[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxhGGZv52Ch2NjxOFt35KsFpja=jCk-x8jBNZcxRe9OoYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:41:15 +0300
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 01/10] fs: common implementation of file type
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:02 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:19:53PM +0100, Phillip Potter wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/file_type.h b/include/linux/file_type.h
>
> Shouldn't this be in include/uapi/linux/fs_types.h?
>
IDGI. Why do we want this file in uapi?
The DT_ constants are already defined by glibc dirent.h
and the FT_ constants and macros we don't want to expose
to uapi at all. Right?
Maybe all we need is a comment above DT_ constants
that those are defined by POSIX and in glibc dirent.h?
> One of things which must be made crystal clear is these definitions
> MUST NOT ever change. It would break the Userspace ABI, and would
> break file systems on-disk format.
>
> It might also be useful to be clear *why* we are making this change in
> the first place. Code refactorization is good from a code maintenance
> perspective (either to fix bugs, although this code is pretty
> trivial),
Very trivial code that has had an out of bounds access bug for two
decades and bug was duplicated to 7 filesystems. IMO, fixing the bug in
one place instead of 7 is a good enough reason for re-factoring.
Thanks,
Amir.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists