On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Don't you agree it's undesirable to lose meta-data? > > Yes I agree. you can have my vote for "it's nice to have this", > but the fact that we did without it for so long must mean something... I'm not sure it means something positive. > Anyway, you need to convince someone to implement it > (unless you do it yourself), some developers to review it > and the maintainers to accept it, so unless you come up with 'a real > world problem', > the busy FS developers will not be bothered to accept 'the fix'. > Accepting new API's has a huge price of testing them and maintaining them > every release, so don't take the resistance personally. > > Now let's say that you decide to focus on the problem of: > 'safe editor save to a file which is not owned by you but writable by you'. > You may want to look for a specific editor which has 'safe save' functionality > (maybe LibreOffice?) and query the developers if they would like the new feature > and if they would support your proposal. > > That is the way kernel development works - and for good reasons. I agree in general you need a good use case. But AFAIK FS devs are aware of many apps not doing it the right way. So I expected them to have a FAQ entry that shows what this right way is. Ted says a huge performance hit is involved, but nobody has been able to tell why yet. There's also the problem of not having permission to create a temp file. Olaf Olaf -- 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
