From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946041Ab2LFQul (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:50:41 -0500 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:37146 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424218Ab2LFQuj (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:50:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:50:24 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Dave Chinner , Linus Torvalds , Martin Steigerwald , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel Subject: Re: [PATCH, 3.7-rc7, RESEND] fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI Message-ID: <20121206165024.GA30273@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Linus Torvalds , Martin Steigerwald , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel References: <1353366267-15629-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <201212051148.28039.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <201212051718.44017.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <20121206011402.GB27172@dastard> <20121206120645.GB14100@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121206120645.GB14100@infradead.org> 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 Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:06:45AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Also the only conference outcome I remember is that everyone at LSF > except for Ted basically said "no fucking way". > At LSF, that's correct. And as a result, the people who need this -- Google and Tao Bao -- have decided to keep the patch as an out-of-tree patch, much like the Android wakelock patch was out of tree, and for similar reasons --- because the community has rejected the functionality. At this point, I've only asked that the bit be reserved, so we don't have to worry about codepoint collisions. (We'd have the same issue with an ioctl, BTW --- we would need to reserve an ioctl number to avoid collisions, although granted there are ways to cleverly choose an ioctl number that would reduce the chance of collisions even if it isn't formally reserved.) Note that this is not a kernel fork the same way the android wakelock is not a kernel fork. It's an out of tree patch which has been rejected by upstream. - Ted