Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > As a result, I would suggest that we not try to use the > FS_IOC_[GS]ETFLAGS number scheme for any new interface, so we're at > least not making a bad situation worse. > > The only reason why some other file systems have chosen to use > FS_IOC_[GS]ETFLAGS, instead of defining their own ioctl, is so they > can use lsattr/chattr from e2fsprogs instead of creating their own > utility. But for statx, there isn't a good reason use the same flags > number space. At the very least, can we use a new flags field for the > Windows file attributes? It's not like lsattr/chattr has the ability > to set those flags today anyway. So we might as well use a new flags > field and a new flags numberspace for them. Hmmm... I was trying to make it so that these bits would be saved to disk as part of the IOC flags so that Samba could make use of them. I guess they'll have to be stored in an xattr instead. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
