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 345CB7F51 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:26:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0478C8F8035 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:26:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id fBOcYX8odNweNGIt (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:26:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:26:34 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Adds ioctl interface support for ext4 project Message-ID: <20140924162634.GA16886@infradead.org> References: <1411567470-31799-1-git-send-email-lixi@ddn.com> <1411567470-31799-5-git-send-email-lixi@ddn.com> <20140924162507.GC27000@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140924162507.GC27000@quack.suse.cz> 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: Jan Kara Cc: adilger@dilger.ca, tytso@mit.edu, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, hch@infradead.org, dmonakhov@openvz.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, Li Xi , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:25:07PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 24-09-14 22:04:30, Li Xi wrote: > > This patch adds ioctl interface for setting/getting project of ext4. > The patch looks good to me. I was just wondering whether it won't be > useful to add an ioctl() which isn't ext4 specific. We could just extend > ->setattr() to allow setting of project ID (most filesystems would just > return -EOPNOTSUPP but ext4 and xfs could do the right thing) and then call > ->setattr from the generic ioctl. That way userspace won't have to care > about filesystem type when setting project ID... What do others think? Absolutely. In general I also wonder why this patch doesn't implement the full XFS API. Maybe there is a reason it was considered and rejected, but it would be helpful to document why. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs