public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc: <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Add check for unsupported xflags
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:58:07 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5F505BBF.5070907@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200902174527.GV6096@magnolia>

On 2020/9/3 1:45, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:38:28AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:03:26AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 01:11:00PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote:
>>>> Hi Darrick,
>>>>
>>>> It is reasonable for your concern to add a check in VFS, but checking all
>>>> defined xflags is too rough in VFS if one filesystem only supports few
>>>> xflags. :-)
>>> I was advocating for two levels of flags checks: one in the VFS for
>>> undefined flags, and a second check in each filesystem for whichever
>>> flag it wants to recognize.  I was not implying that the VFS checks
>>> would be sufficient on their own.
>>>
>> I've not really followed this thread completely but wouldn't this proposed
>> check in the VFS layer be redundant because the set of flags the filesystem
>> accepts should always be a strict subset of the VFS flags?
Hi,

I also think this check in the VFS is redundant. :-)

> Yes.  It's 100% CYA.  I wouldn't be that bent out of shape if the vfs
> part never happens, but as we already have a vfs argument checker
> function in addition to the per-fs validation I don't see why we would
> leave a gap... ;)

After looking at vfs_ioc_fssetxattr_check(), why do we need to move the 
check of extent
size hint to vfs?  It seems a xfs-specific flag, right?
btw:
It is fine to move DAX and project id to vfs because they are supported 
by more than one
filesystem(e.g. ext4 and xfs).

Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
> --D
>
>> Ira
>
> .
>




      reply	other threads:[~2020-09-03  2:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-31 13:37 [PATCH] xfs: Add check for unsupported xflags Xiao Yang
2020-08-31 17:22 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-09-01  6:05   ` Xiao Yang
2020-09-01 16:35     ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-09-02  2:41       ` Xiao Yang
2020-09-02  3:09         ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-09-02  3:34           ` Xiao Yang
2020-09-02  4:10             ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-09-02  5:11               ` Xiao Yang
2020-09-02 17:03                 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-09-02 17:38                   ` Ira Weiny
2020-09-02 17:45                     ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-09-03  2:58                       ` Xiao Yang [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5F505BBF.5070907@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox