Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fiemap, an extent mapping ioctl - round 2

[jim owens <jowens@hp.com>]

Jamie Lokier wrote:
> jim owens wrote:
> 
>>What I'm saying is that we should find some other name for
>>the flag than "NO_DIRECT" because it is easier than trying
>>to explain away the confusion.  Any other suggestions?
> 
> I proposed "PHYSICAL" because it corresponds with the name of the
> fe_physical field.
> 
> Following this thread, I'm thinking it would be better to change the
> sense of the flag, too, from NO_DIRECT to DIRECT.  I.e. only set when
> access to the physical device is usable.

I like your logic.  Instead of the NO_DIRECT (my NO_BYPASS)
this would seem to be better:

* FIEMAP_FLAG_PHYSICAL
*   If this flag is set, the physical device region defined by
*   the tuple (fs_device, fe_physical, fe_length) is directly
*   accessible outside the filesystem.
*

And fixes Andreas's legitimate original objection to having
the flag named "PHYSICAL".

jim