From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:54:02 -0700 Subject: [Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/25] move handling of setuid/gid bits from VFS into individual setattr functions (RESEND) In-Reply-To: <1186533934.6625.91.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <200708061354.l76Ds3mU002255@dantu.rdu.redhat.com> <20070807171501.e31c4a97.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1186533934.6625.91.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Message-ID: <20070807175402.03ceb0b7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:45:34 -0400 Trond Myklebust wrote: > > - rename something so that unconverted filesystems will reliably fail to > > compile? > > > > - leave existing filesystems alone, but add a new > > inode_operations.setattr_jeff, which the networked filesytems can > > implement, and teach core vfs to call setattr_jeff in preference to > > setattr? > > If you really need to know that the filesystem is handling the flags, > then how about instead having ->setattr() return something which > indicates which flags it actually handled? That is likely to be a far > more intrusive change, but it is one which is future-proof. If we change ->setattr so that it will return a positive, non-zero value which the caller can then check and reliably do printk("that filesystem needs updating") then that addresses my concern, sure.