From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fiemap, an extent mapping ioctl - round 2
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 02:53:03 +0100
Message-ID: <20080709015303.GB10728@shareable.org>
References: <20080625221835.GQ28100@wotan.suse.de> <486CE430.9010902@hp.com> <20080704090057.GQ6239@webber.adilger.int> <4872A6AF.3060303@hp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: jim owens <jowens@hp.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:49453 "EHLO
	mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750909AbYGIBxE (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:53:04 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4872A6AF.3060303@hp.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

jim owens wrote:
> What I'm saying is that we should find some other name for
> the flag than "NO_DIRECT" because it is easier than trying
> to explain away the confusion.  Any other suggestions?

I proposed "PHYSICAL" because it corresponds with the name of the
fe_physical field.

Following this thread, I'm thinking it would be better to change the
sense of the flag, too, from NO_DIRECT to DIRECT.  I.e. only set when
access to the physical device is usable.

-- Jamie