From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] quota: Don't store flags for v2 quota format Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:34:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20150119123438.GE5662@quack.suse.cz> References: <1421260031-3355-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1421260031-3355-2-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20150115094034.GA32651@infradead.org> <20150115101310.GD12739@quack.suse.cz> <20150119091432.GA15695@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Kara , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, Mark Fasheh , Joel Becker To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53628 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751502AbbASMek (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:34:40 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150119091432.GA15695@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon 19-01-15 01:14:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:13:10AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hum, I'm not sure I follow you. Current kernels will store any 32-bit > > number user sets in flags field. So if we wanted to be 100% safe, we'd have > > to just ignore that field. Which isn't currently a problem since quota code > > doesn't use the field for anything (it was added just for future > > extensions). But since I'm pretty certain noone actually relies on values > > of that field, I though we could just get away with forcibly zeroing the > > field now and if there's a need to use the field in a few years, we could > > start using it. > > Oh, I misread the code and your description. I thought we would just > store any potentially valid in-core flag on disk. > > I guess for now the best case would be to stop storing anything, and > then just make an educated decision if/when we need a flags field. Yes, that's what I do in the patch. So we are in agreement here. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR