linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 5/6] btrfs: sysfs: Add directory for read policies

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YCqMR3JZIlmYNt1s@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Feb 2021 15:59:19 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@...e.de>
Cc:     Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        "open list:BTRFS FILE SYSTEM" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 5/6] btrfs: sysfs: Add directory for read policies

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:35:35PM +0000, Michal Rostecki wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 11:19:28AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 09:30:39PM +0100, Michal Rostecki wrote:
> > > From: Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@...e.com>
> > > 
> > > Before this change, raid1 read policy could be selected by using the
> > > /sys/fs/btrfs/[fsid]/read_policy file.
> > > 
> > > Change it to /sys/fs/btrfs/[fsid]/read_policies/policy.
> > > 
> > > The motivation behing creating the read_policies directory is that the
> > > next changes and new read policies are going to intruduce settings
> > > specific to read policies.
> > 
> > No Documentation/ABI/ update for this change?
> > 
> 
> Good point. As far as I see, we have no btrfs-related file there. I will
> add it to Documentation/ABI/testing in v2.
> 
> I guess we also need to document all the options from btrfs that are
> unaffected by this particular patchset? Would it make sense to cover
> them in a separate patch?

That would be a good idea to do as a separate and new patch, yes.

thanks,

greg k-h