Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I would say this should be a full-fledged member of struct xstat. I think > they are fairly standard (available on many filesystems today), and > requiring an ioctl to access them is unpleasant. Remember: adding them to xstat and kstat will use up three extra 64-bit words of stack at least if ecryptfs. Are they used often enough to justify this? > Yuck on the names. Why not stick with the "UF_" and "SF_" prefixes? Firstly, this is a quick and dirty example, primarily because I'd like someone to take a look at the mechanism. Secondly, because the flags I've added don't have UF_ and SF_ variants within Linux. > Since we don't need to keep _binary_ compatibility with these flag values > (only name portability) we can use the same flag values as the FS_*_FL > definitions in fs.h. No, you can't, because Linux doesn't have separate S and U variants. However, I'd be quite happy to just use the FS_*_FL, perhaps plus a couple of flags, and have userspace munge together the BSD-compatible st_flags. To that end, could we rearrange i_flags to match the ioctl? David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
