From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rearrange i_flags to be consistent with FS_IOC_GETFLAGS Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:45:25 +0100 Message-ID: <5045.1278459925@redhat.com> References: <20100706230312.GB25018@dastard> <20100706001032.GA25018@dastard> <20100705154319.31193.56706.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <29431.1278423623@redhat.com> Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100706230312.GB25018@dastard> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Dave Chinner wrote: > I'd prefer generic flags are not dependent on fixed values from a > specific filesystem several layers down the storage stack. They're not so dependent. They're based on the FS_IOC_[GS]ETFLAGS ioctl which even XFS translates its flags for. These ioctl flags must now remain invariant. Whilst they might have originated as Ext2/3/4 flags, they're now independent of that. > Also, if the problem you are trying to solve is overhead of calculating the > flags for stat() on RISC architectures, then I'd argue that XFS is just as > important target for such an optimisation because it is widely used in small > ARM and MIPS based NAS appliances.... This can be argued one way or another, however aligning i_flags with something would probably be an improvement somewhere. Most of what I deal with is Ext3/4 based, and BTRFS-based is likely to become important too. David