[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: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:26:40 +1000
Cc: Li Xi <pkuelelixi@xxxxxxxxx>, adilger@xxxxxxxxx, linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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?

I've repeatedly said that these ext4 project ID patches should
implement the same interfaces as XFS rather than creating a new set
of incompatible, ext4 specific interfaces to do implement the same

There is no good reason for forcing userspace to re-invent tools
that already exist just to manage identical functionality in
different filesystems.


Dave Chinner

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