On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 03:46:13PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 05:04:55PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > > Here are a set of patches that adds system calls, that (a) allow > > information about the VFS, mount topology, superblock and files to be > > retrieved and (b) allow for notifications of mount topology rearrangement > > events, mount and superblock attribute changes and other superblock events, > > such as errors. > > > > ============================ > > FILESYSTEM INFORMATION QUERY > > ============================ > > > > The first system call, fsinfo(), allows information about the filesystem at > > a particular path point to be queried as a set of attributes, some of which > > may have more than one value. > > > > Attribute values are of four basic types: > > > > (1) Version dependent-length structure (size defined by type). > > > > (2) Variable-length string (up to 4096, including NUL). > > > > (3) List of structures (up to INT_MAX size). > > > > (4) Opaque blob (up to INT_MAX size). > > I mainly have an organizational question. :) This is a huge patchset > with lots and lots of (good) features. Wouldn't it make sense to make > the fsinfo() syscall a completely separate patchset from the > watch_mount() and watch_sb() syscalls? It seems that they don't need to > depend on each other at all. This would make reviewing this so much > nicer and likely would mean that fsinfo() could proceed a little faster. Agreed; I was also wondering why it was necessary to have three new features in the same large(ish) patchset. --D > Christian
