From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ensure i_ino uniqueness in filesystems without permanent inode numbers (via idr) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:56:27 -0500 Message-ID: <45723CDB.1060304@redhat.com> References: <457040C4.1000002@redhat.com> <20061201085227.2463b185.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20061201172136.GA11669@dantu.rdu.redhat.com> <20061202053013.GC26389@cynthia.pants.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:24252 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424805AbWLCC4g (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Dec 2006 21:56:36 -0500 To: Brad Boyer In-Reply-To: <20061202053013.GC26389@cynthia.pants.nu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Brad Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:21:36PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: >> Here's an updated (but untested) patch based on your suggestions. I also went >> ahead and made the exported symbols GPL-only since that seems like it would be >> appropriate here. Any further thoughts on it? > > This seems like exactly the sort of thing that should be a generic > service available to all filesystem implementors whether it's GPL or > not. The usual justification for GPL-only is that it's something > random modules shouldn't be touching anyway, but it's something that > some part of the tree which could be a module needs. My main reasoning for doing this was that the structures involved are per-superblock. There is virtually no reason that a filesystem would ever need to touch these structures in another filesystem. So, this is essentially a service to make it easy for filesystems to implement i_ino uniqueness. I'm not terribly interested in making things easier for proprietary filesystems, so I don't see a real reason to make this available to them. They can always implement their own scheme to do this. I'm certainly open to discussion though. Is there a compelling reason to open this up to proprietary software authors? -- Jeff