From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Fiemap, an extent mapping ioctl Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:47:30 -0400 Message-ID: <20080527164730.GB9707@infradead.org> References: <20080525000148.GJ8325@wotan.suse.de> <20080525194203.GB24328@infradead.org> <200805270948.51898.chris.mason@oracle.com> <483C3501.60705@sandeen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Chris Mason , Christoph Hellwig , Mark Fasheh , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Dilger , Kalpak Shah , Eric Sandeen , Josef Bacik To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:51563 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756712AbYE0Qrd (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 12:47:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <483C3501.60705@sandeen.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:21:21AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > The HSM flag doesn't hurt, and it allows the people actually shipping hsm > > patches to use fiemap without extending the api themselves. Reserving the > > flag isn't a bad idea. > > Here I agree. HSM is a generic enough concept, and I think this > interface's API w.r.t. HSM is well-enough defined that there's no reason > not to go ahead & put it in now, IMHO. But there is no such thing as HSM support anywher near mainline. Call me a dickhead, but I'm 100% against adding anything helping HSM until people get their act together to actually add HSM support. It's something really useful that we should have, and not something that should be in really grotty out of tree codebases.