From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Becker Subject: Re: [RFC] The reflink(2) system call v2. Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:49:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20090511204924.GC30293@mail.oracle.com> References: <1241331303-23753-1-git-send-email-joel.becker@oracle.com> <20090507221535.GA31624@mail.oracle.com> <4A039FF8.7090807@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jmorris@namei.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk To: jim owens Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A039FF8.7090807@hp.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ocfs2-devel-bounces@oss.oracle.com Errors-To: ocfs2-devel-bounces@oss.oracle.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:59:04PM -0400, jim owens wrote: > - fix the > + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) > + return -EPERM; > > to be an ISREG check unless you have an argument for > special files and symlinks being COWed. I'm unsure on this one, and would like other comments. Why? It doesn't *hurt* to allow reflink on symlinks or special files. Mostly it's a waste - symlinks may have a data extent, but special files do not. But I'm not sure there's a point to arbitrarily limit filesystems when there's nothing we're combating. Jim, if you have a real problem this prevents, I'm all ears. And if others concur that restricting it to regular files is the right way to go, I can be convinced. Joel -- "Hey mister if you're gonna walk on water, Could you drop a line my way?" Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127