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 0578E7FCC for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 15:37:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88998F8081 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 13:37:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id E4PGRVvANdCZebAm (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 13:37:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 13:37:44 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: struct xfs_sb is no longer tied to the on-disk format Message-ID: <20150203213744.GA31631@infradead.org> References: <1422826983-29570-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1422826983-29570-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20150202084102.GA28121@infradead.org> <20150202193020.GJ6282@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150202193020.GJ6282@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 06:30:21AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I'd expect to move it close to stuct xfs_mount, and maybe even merge > > it into that in the long run. > > I guess moving the structure there is fine, but we still want all > the version functions to be shared with userspace, which then makes > for an interesting set of dependencies. Any other ideas? Are they really worth the sharing? If they are worth it we'll need somethign that can expect a xfs_sb/xfs_mount to be defined. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs