From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432F9C33C8C for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 17:51:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F085520866 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 17:51:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="aElfaH19"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="egM4zJiH" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726376AbgAERvv (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jan 2020 12:51:51 -0500 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:35304 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726264AbgAERvv (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jan 2020 12:51:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EF08EE148; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 09:51:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1578246710; bh=/O6Z8BsHvMh2UwSigtzUiEUL2QF8ER/Ca7tLjhwe1gU=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=aElfaH19GG+9IjOoiUPIuwr6JLgxu1Kjexya4e3mPsVS/S74hZqKDnFUu95lQx8Rp FxvrBE3Wg4yde/wZPiU9sNSaEeRapERExtD1QkgpkNNgcoH7XFJ+/mS314doXqEBKt ZJVZLeNwAVU9cD2eeEcuG96HooYv0JVmT41IrwMY= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8dO8nz5S8QMX; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 09:51:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from jarvis.lan (unknown [50.35.76.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C14A68EE0D2; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 09:51:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1578246708; bh=/O6Z8BsHvMh2UwSigtzUiEUL2QF8ER/Ca7tLjhwe1gU=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=egM4zJiHW8UGSohp38WGLq9JUxFtIIyNAnAsiVEWcdsmPej3ehiBN/JZE7y0VbylL cfK4ynZpTGN9VA6SbmaTo7uEYt/o6/lhQjGbAZW4TO/D8Eexsa8k8Q8wONjWhK3DRF 2MuRcMq4B3vK35tB/mEPFO4exroFClc3C6OApSF0= Message-ID: <1578246706.3310.28.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] introduce configfd as generalisation of fsconfig From: James Bottomley To: Christian Brauner , David Howells , Al Viro Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Christian Brauner , Miklos Szeredi Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 09:51:46 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20200105162311.sufgft6kthetsz7q@wittgenstein> References: <20200104201432.27320-1-James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> <20200105162311.sufgft6kthetsz7q@wittgenstein> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2020-01-05 at 17:23 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > So I have strong reservations about configfd and would strongly favor > the revival of the original fsconfig() patchset. Just so I know what I'm replying to, what is the "original fsconfig() patchset"? I simply based configfd on what was upstream ... I couldn't find much discussion in the archives about precursors or original patch sets, so a pointer would be very much appreciated. James