David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. Or as Dave Chinner suggested, I can put them elsewhere and let the FS deal with them in its own way. 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
