From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Move attribute flags into non __KERNEL__ space Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:29:55 +0000 Message-ID: <20111217182955.GX2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1324021626-10059-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com> <20111216192320.GA23748@infradead.org> <1324071040.29432.3.camel@sasha> <20111216233041.GU2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <87vcpfjosl.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sasha Levin , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:56811 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751547Ab1LQSaB (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:30:01 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87vcpfjosl.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 07:14:26PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > It's a 9P bug; fix it there. Turning random internal constants into a part > > of ABI is not going to work. > > I guess we would need to define them at the protocol level then. > Something like f88657ce3f9713a0c62101dffb0e972a979e77b9. The question is which ones make sense at the protocol level...