[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpeguEbd1h96OVhDAPEwoWGrF0Nk7q0GD9W6FhGp+eVgVRCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 09:14:51 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [LSF TOPIC] statx extensions for subvol/snapshot filesystems & more
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 16:48, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com> wrote:
> Right, nobody is arguing that. Our plan is to
>
> 1) Introduce some sort of statx mechanism to expose this information.
> 2) Introduce an incompat fs feature flag to give unique inode numbers for people
> that want them, and there stop doing the st_dev thing we currently do.
I don't get it. What does the filesystem (the actual bits on disk)
have anything to do with how st_dev is exposed to userspace
applications?
This is not a filesystem feature, this is an interface feature. And I
even doubt that salvaging st_dev is worth it. Userspace should just
be converted to use something else. In other words st_ino *and*
st_dev are legacy and we need to find superior alternatives.
Seems like there's an agreement about file handle being able to replace st_ino.
I'm not quite sure fsid or uuid can replace st_dev, but that's up for
discussion.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists