From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:34753 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752003AbbAJKRH (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2015 05:17:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 02:17:03 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Martin Steigerwald Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Lennart Poettering , dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: btrfs_inode_item's otime? Message-ID: <20150110101703.GA5385@infradead.org> References: <20150105172152.GB19126@gardel-login> <20150107135734.GA21327@gardel-login> <20150107144250.GA2901@infradead.org> <8849914.dEW4UQEyXo@merkaba> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <8849914.dEW4UQEyXo@merkaba> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 11:13:52AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > What is the issue with the xstat, new stat format stuff? Basically I have the > feeling that this is in discussion for at least 5 years or so and I always > wondered where it is stuck. I am not aware of any discussions of it recently, > but I may have overseen those. It's mostly because it turned on into an exercise of blatant overengineering. The primary need in the stat area is a few new fields, and the secondary interesting one is to allow the user to request only some field that it actually needs (i.e. statlite). But all the proposals included bullshit like variable length fields, xattrs and similar and thus were totally off the table.