On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:04 PM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 4:59 AM David Disseldorp <ddiss@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:17:11 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > Yeah, I rolled a half-assed xfstests patch that did this, and HCH gave > > > it a NAK. He's probably right though, and fixing it in ceph.ko is a > > > better approach I think. > > > > It sounds as though Christoph's objection is to any use of a "ceph" > > xattr namespace for exposing CephFS specific information. I'm not sure > > what the alternatives would be, but I find the vxattrs much nicer for > > consumption compared to ioctls, etc. > > Agreed. I don't understand the objection [1] at all. > > If the issue is that utilities copying a file may also copy xattrs, I > don't understand why there would be an expectation that all xattrs are > copyable or should be copied. I'm sure it is about this, and that's the expectation because, uh, outside of weird things like Ceph then all matters are copyable and should be copied. That's how the interface is defined and built. I'm actually a bit puzzled to see this patch go by because I didn't think we listed the ceph.* matters on a listxattr command! If we want discoverability (to see what options are available on a running system) we can return them in response to a getxattr on the "ceph" xattr or something. -Greg > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg12282.html > > -- > Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D. > He / Him / His > Senior Software Engineer > Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA > GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
