From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: [PATCH] staging/lustre/llite: fix
 O_TMPFILE/O_LOV_DELAY_CREATE conflict
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:13:42 -0800
Message-ID: <20140211091342.GB25567@infradead.org>
References: <CF1E8098.91265%andreas.dilger@intel.com>
 <20140210212929.GF18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
	Peng Tao <bergwolf@gmail.com>,
	"greg@kroah.com" <greg@kroah.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:49140 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751648AbaBKJNr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 04:13:47 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140210212929.GF18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:29:29PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> I can live with that; it's a kludge, but it's less broken than that
> explicit constant - that one is a non-starter, since O_... flag
> values are arch-dependent.

Grabbing their own O_FLAG is of course not acceptable at all.
Personally I don't think this version is acceptable for real mainline
either.  What exactly are the semantics of the flag?  Why don't you do
object allocation on demand like all delalloc filesystems by default?