From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753896Ab2KZCzZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:55:25 -0500 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:34721 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753789Ab2KZCzX (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:55:23 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:55:20 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, 3.7-rc7, RESEND] fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI Message-ID: <20121126025520.GC22858@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Dave Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org References: <1353366267-15629-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20121126002814.GM32450@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121126002814.GM32450@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:28:14AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI > > From: Dave Chinner > > Commit bbdd6808 ("fs: reserve fallocate flag codepoint") changes the > fallocate(2) syscall interface. The flag that is reserved by this > commit is for functionality that has previously been NAKed on the > -fsdevel mailing list, and so exists out-of-tree. Hi Linus, It doesn't change the interface or break anything; it just reserves a bit so that out-of-tree patches don't collide with future allocations. There are significant usages of this bit within Google and Tao Bao. It is true that there has been significant pushback about adding this functionality on linux-fsdevel; I find it personally frustrating that in effect, if enough people scream, they can veto an optional feature that might only be implemented by a single file system. It's not like there is any shortage of flag bits, so what's the harm of reserving the bit? - Ted