xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/6] vfs: support FS_XFLAG_REFLINK and FS_XFLAG_COWEXTSIZE

To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] vfs: support FS_XFLAG_REFLINK and FS_XFLAG_COWEXTSIZE
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 05:58:08 -0700
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160906191515.GA26927@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <147216784041.525.7722906502172299465.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <147216786073.525.16014208838990530622.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160905145622.GB7662@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160906191515.GA26927@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 12:15:15PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> So far I've put the reflink flag to use in xfs_scrub to look for
> obvious signs of brokenness such as extents that overlap or have the
> shared flag set but the inode flag is off; and to skip various kinds
> of checks that don't have to happen when blocks don't overlap.
> 
> I doubt there's much of a use for the flag outside of the XFS utilities.
> For a while I pondered only exposing the fsxattr flag if the caller had
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN (the level of priviledge required to run scrub) but
> decided that I wouldn't change the existing interface like that unless
> I had a really good reason.

I don't think CAP_SYS_ADMIN is nessecarily the right thing, but it's
still an XFS implementation detail which I don't think we should
pollute a flags API for normal user space applications with.

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