On 4/1/13 2:08 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 01:21:51PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> This would allow a bit more flexibility than just requiring that the >>> ioctl be issued just after the opendir(), and allow it just after a >>> call to rewinddir(). >> >> I guess I do wonder what real-world use that might have, though. > > To be honest, I can't think of one. And if the presumption is this is > just going to be a special case hack, maybe we shouldn't worry about > the general-use case. > > Thinking about this some more, keeping this simple might be better way > to go. It's not like we really want to be encouraging people to use > this interface.... > > What do you think? Urgh, I guess if we are adding an interface which will live "forever," we may as well make it full featured & flexible, as long as the complexity isn't out of hand, and I don't think it will be in this case. So I'm at least half inclined to go ahead & allow toggling it on and off under the right circumstances, even though it goes against what I think is my better judgement. ;) -Eric > - Ted > -- 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
