From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jim owens Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fiemap, an extent mapping ioctl - round 2 Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:01:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4874D2D4.4070802@hp.com> References: <20080625221835.GQ28100@wotan.suse.de> <486CE430.9010902@hp.com> <20080704090057.GQ6239@webber.adilger.int> <4872A6AF.3060303@hp.com> <20080709015303.GB10728@shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andreas Dilger , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jamie Lokier Return-path: Received: from g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.46]:9005 "EHLO g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756709AbYGIPBq (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:01:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080709015303.GB10728@shareable.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jamie Lokier wrote: > jim owens wrote: > >>What I'm saying is that we should find some other name for >>the flag than "NO_DIRECT" because it is easier than trying >>to explain away the confusion. Any other suggestions? > > I proposed "PHYSICAL" because it corresponds with the name of the > fe_physical field. > > Following this thread, I'm thinking it would be better to change the > sense of the flag, too, from NO_DIRECT to DIRECT. I.e. only set when > access to the physical device is usable. I like your logic. Instead of the NO_DIRECT (my NO_BYPASS) this would seem to be better: * FIEMAP_FLAG_PHYSICAL * If this flag is set, the physical device region defined by * the tuple (fs_device, fe_physical, fe_length) is directly * accessible outside the filesystem. * And fixes Andreas's legitimate original objection to having the flag named "PHYSICAL". jim