From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l92LW4xX012421 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:32:07 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:31:53 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: Creation time in XFS Message-ID: <20071002213153.GI995458@sgi.com> References: <200709302124.38164.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <470042DC.2040009@sgi.com> <20071002092509.GF995458@sgi.com> <20071002093822.GA24907@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071002093822.GA24907@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: David Chinner , Andi Kleen , Timothy Shimmin , Martin Steigerwald , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:38:22AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:25:10PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > > I don't think it is at all currently: > > > > So what is the point? Forensic analysis? > > Windows wants it, so I guess they added when they had to bump the inode > version anyway in preparation of a user interface for samba. Can you point me to whatever list this was discussed on? This is exactly the sort of stuff that needs to be discussed on -fsdevel. > We probably > should do the same for XFS when bumping the inode version for the crcs. Perhaps. I don't really like the idea of adding unused fields to the on disk structure just in case it is needed in the future.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group