From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: [PATCH, 3.7-rc7, RESEND] fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:24:05 +0100 Message-ID: <201212051824.05621.Martin@lichtvoll.de> References: <1353366267-15629-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <201212051718.44017.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <20121205163303.GG18885@thunk.org> (sfid-20121205_181332_034477_2335FA49) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Chinner , "linux-fsdevel" To: "Theodore Ts'o" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121205163303.GG18885@thunk.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2012 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:18:43PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Dave provided technical reasons. > >=20 > > First in the patch description and then in: > >=20 > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/26/700 >=20 > There were no technical reasons. We are only reserving a bit. And > different file systems don't support all of the various different > fallocate flags already --- for example, not all file systems support > the punch system call. >=20 > Yes, I could create an entrely new ioctl() that looks just like > fallocate, but supports the extra bit, just so that Dave and others > don't have to be offended about the existence of that extra bit --- > but Linus (and others) have considered ioctl()'s evil, since there is > no type checking, and it's just silly to create a separate interface > just because somebody doesn't think some other file system shouldn't > implement a particular feature --- especially since it's not like > we're have any kind of shortage of bits in the fallocate field. Thanks for explaining your technical view about this. I appreciate it. > Heck, I probably have more to complain about with the inode flags > field, which were originally created specifically for ext2/3/4, and > which has since been grabbed for use by other file systems, including > btrfs. You haven't heard me kvetching because btrfs has grabbed > btrfs-specific inode flags for nocow and notail... no one even bother > to try to get it past the fs-devel shed painting crew before *those* > bits were allocated --- and I am absolutely fine with that. Thats no technical reason =E2=80=93 thats exactly the process / patch r= eview stuff=20 Linus does not seem to give a shit about at least with this topic. That aside I wondered about that inode flags in earlier days already. A= t=20 some time chattr +i worked with XFS and then it only worked in Ext3.=20 Before that I thought that chattr stuff would work with all filesystems= =2E --=20 Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7