From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CBF7F55 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 21:20:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A478C8F8040 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 19:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id HLSjFeOMLWEkwEz8 for ; Sun, 03 Aug 2014 19:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 12:20:05 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: Is jdm_delete_filehandle part of a public API? Message-ID: <20140804022005.GV20518@dastard> References: <53D7DA7F.2040706@redhat.com> <20140801135305.GA31894@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140801135305.GA31894@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:53:05AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Talking about libhandle: this one has been a bit bitrotted. Maybe it's > a good time to move everything over to the kernel by handle syscalls > and deprecated it? First you need to make the kernel by-handle interfaces handle the sae functionality as the XFS by-handle ioctls. 1. O_NOCMTIME doesn't exist, and so there's no way to do invisible IO on files. 2. Can we construct VFs filehandles in userspace from bulkstat information (dump, xfs_fsr and others rely on this capability)? 3. The kernel by-handle interfaces cannot manipulate attributes at all (i.e. attr-list, attr-multi functionality). So until the VFS by-handle interfaces can do these things, we can't change libhandle over to use the newer kernel interfaces. I'm also pretty sure the incompatible handle format would mean big problems if someone were to be storing file handles in userspace and they upgrade their version of libhandle. i.e. such a library implementation change is not forwards or backwards compatible with existing applications, but bumping the major shared library version should solve that problem. However, these are all solvable problems. It's definitely a low priority for me to do this, but if you want to do it patches will definitely be accepted ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs