From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: xattr namespace question Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:59:49 +0000 Message-ID: <20060322085949.GA5965@infradead.org> References: <1142942773.6400.1212.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> <20060321122119.GN6199@schatzie.adilger.int> <20060321235828.GB6846@frodo> <1143018426.6400.1230.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nathan Scott , a.gruenbacher@bestbits.at, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:36246 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751127AbWCVI7y (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:59:54 -0500 To: Steven Whitehouse Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1143018426.6400.1230.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 09:07:06AM +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > Yes, and for flags which are supported by ext2/3 this seems a sensible > route to take and I've already made a start to supporting that ioctl(). > However there are still some other flags which don't fit in with the > existing ext2 flags, so for those we'll have to look for a different > method for those. there's flags only supported on xfs or jfs aswell, so adding new ones for gfs is fine. we'll need to make sure they don't overlap, though. I have long planned to have a common header for all flags and some shared utility code but never got to it.