From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FD8F1F5EA; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 05:30:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761024632; cv=none; b=sDm1wMU42DIJdQS+JBKvyIUByFQTayeSgrM+32zC6zEFSkpOWMwKXZ1+E17C2Qka908JaEXhlBd2Ksm/pNA785S/hnbJTb7mx4+MKMn6CMDXKGq2/3xg7nq8I2nU+ZD8K4oST/YhlefAoL2ROEmMce5MLd0n2e4j0VOKuSbXGOE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761024632; c=relaxed/simple; bh=58JB3OXmT/Dcm5ZQWLxXVb8cZcxUXvoqweDpiWVS5/w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KarL2I1myEY2zzes7H+RX70oi8/fhnmqwVVieT6u3eQOWvLFs/ETwp4v4GLWFMknBEOaF3gxjN0+6GdL45az1j7B7gQHU0FFFdjCgQVedMZxoCvgRnZWGaYpAG0SR2kMIGoFdq8QN4gfQtb5g3SxtCDLJHahMTBnq90pnQA3ImM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=UGDxDwA7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="UGDxDwA7" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=JF1Nnm3PTrBK6caP+xG43SNQx+MMy4M1FkV2fWGTi6o=; b=UGDxDwA73N0sFBybofJKOplqzB dBv75T57bjWZ2Ib4spZfGdjzeocaAJNmWBLVtY7Nk/h5pPRcTnD1kqpmOuWphJpnhPWkduB3K0F9a tHw6VPD4sUQiGZnZ/k3NOw5oVUMZ0bIke+srDuMW6J65KIOPgWUE3hf5qK2NZWcWW0xI22J2Nak1G jXHyY/HBiVqXy9R2Q5JgEwHv/1l4yiuf0b6xvQuf9hDhjt9lHG1kYWH14sfGiJ/TgtsVMetOPj+/d OHweOiibFGApMohG8XQkqid34ziheoirszhlslZ6lTYa6CmhDoO3mpqGJefwjobZW8dgPg4b+aPM2 UCfJ8Etg==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vB4x3-0000000FrU6-1Bvj; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 05:30:29 +0000 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 22:30:29 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Theodore Ts'o , zlang@redhat.com, fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] common/filter: fix _filter_file_attributes to handle xfs file flags Message-ID: References: <176054617853.2391029.10911105763476647916.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <176054618007.2391029.16547003793604851342.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20251017162218.GD6178@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20251020163713.GM6178@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251020163713.GM6178@frogsfrogsfrogs> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 09:37:13AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > [add tytso and linux-ext4] > > I think we should standardize on the VFS (aka file_getattr) flag values, > which means the xfs version more or less wins. Ok, I'm more than confused than before. Shouldn't we simply use separate filters for FS_IOC_GETFLAGS vs FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR?