Re: [RFC][PATCH] ensure i_ino uniqueness in filesystems without permanent inode numbers (via idr)

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>]

Brad Boyer wrote:
> 
> This sounds slightly petty to me. For example, generic_file_read() is
> there just to make it easier to implement the read callback, but it
> isn't required. In fact, I would think that any filesystem complex
> enough to be worth making proprietary would not use it. However, that
> doesn't seem to me to be a good argument for marking it GPL-only. The
> functionality in question is easier to reimplement, but that doesn't
> make it right to force it on people just because of a license choice.
> 

Yes, most filesystems have their own scheme for managing i_ino 
assignment, so this is primarily for "pseudo-filesystems". Stuff like 
pipefs, sockfs, /proc, etc...

>> I'm certainly open to discussion though. Is there a compelling reason to 
>> open this up to proprietary software authors?
> 
> I don't think there is a compelling reason to open it up since the
> functionality could be reimplemented if needed, but I also think
> the only reason it is being marked GPL-only is the very common
> attitude that there should not be any proprietary modules.
> 
> To be honest, I think it looks bad for someone associated with redhat
> to be suggesting that life should be made more difficult for those
> who write proprietary software on Linux. The support from commercial
> software is a major reason for the success of the RHEL product line.
> I can't imagine that this attitude will affect support from software
> companies as long as there is a demand for software on Linux, but
> it isn't exactly supportive.
> 

I have no problem with someone writing, selling and supporting 
proprietary modules. Knock yourself out. I just don't see a reason why I 
should contribute code to such an effort.

Still though, this was coded in part on company time. I certainly don't 
want to go against Red Hat's policy in such a matter, so I'll do some 
due diligence internally as to how this should be done.

In the meantime, does anyone have objections or comments on this 
approach on technical grounds?

Thanks,
Jeff