On 12/1/20 4:09 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So basically, the thing that argues against this patch is that it > seems to just duplicate things inside filesystems, when the VFS layter > already has the information. > > Now, if the VFS information was possibly stale or wrong, that woudl be > one thing. But then we'd have other and bigger problems elsewhere as > far as I can tell. > > IOW - make generic what can be made generic, and try to avoid having > filesystems do their own thing. > > [ Replace "filesystems" by "architectures" or whatever else, this is > obviously not a filesystem-specific rule in general. ] > > And don't get me wrong - I don't _hate_ the patch, and I don't care > _that_ deeply, but it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. My > initial query was really about "what am I missing - can you please > flesh out the commit message because I don't understand what's wrong". Backing way up, my motivation was: Only the filesystem can appropriately set the statx->attributes_mask, so it has to be done there. Since that has to be done in the filesystem, set the actual attribute flag adjacent to it, as is done for ~every other flag. *shrug* In any case I resent the flag value clash fix on a separate thread as V2, hopefully that one is straightforward enough to go in. Thanks, -Eric
