From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/3][RESEND] ext2fsprogs: Symlink support and doc fix Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:49:20 -0800 Message-ID: <1355971763-2348-1-git-send-email-dvhart@infradead.org> Cc: tytso@mit.edu, adilger@dilger.ca, sgw@linux.intel.com To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:37468 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751397Ab2LTCtf (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:49:35 -0500 Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: As we appear to have agreed that adding symlink support to debugfs via a new ext2fs_symlink() function in libext2fs was something that needed doing, I thought I'd use this as a trial run for my first contribution to the ext2fsprogs package before I continue working on the larger project of completing initial directory support for mke2fs. While I modeled this patch after existing code, their were some inconcsistencies in the code examples I used that I'd welcome input on. In particular: o Should the ext2fs_link() happen right after ext2fs_new_inode()? Or should it happen closer to the end of the operation? do_write() and ext2fs_mkdir() handle this differently. o Is it necessary to allocate the first block and assign it to the inode or the extents? ext2fs_mkdir() does this, do_write() does not. I opted for the simpler of the two and it passes my initial simple tests. o Should I pass "mode" to ext2fs_new_inode() even though it is ignored? o Would it make sense to try once to expand_dir rather than bailing out of ext2fs_mkdir() and ext2fs_symlink() if the directory is full? o What would we like the initial uid,gid,mode,*time values to be for files/directories/links/etc. created with libext2fs? Finally, I made an attempt to follow the coding style I observed in the code, but if I missed something, please let me know. Thanks, Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center