[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Adds ioctl interface support for ext4 project

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Adds ioctl interface support for ext4 project
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:26:34 -0700
Cc: Li Xi <pkuelelixi@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, adilger@xxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140924162507.GC27000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1411567470-31799-1-git-send-email-lixi@xxxxxxx> <1411567470-31799-5-git-send-email-lixi@xxxxxxx> <20140924162507.GC27000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>