On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:34:29AM +0100, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 07:56:02PM +0100, Andreas Grünbacher wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am Mi., 5. Dez. 2018 um 10:18 Uhr schrieb Carlos Maiolino > > <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > This is the second version of the complete series with the goal to remove ->bmap > > > interface completely, in lieu of FIEMAP. > > > > I'm not thrilled by this approach. How about exposing the iomap > > operations at the vfs layer (for example, in the super block) and > > implementing bmap on top of that instead? > > > > Well, the idea is exactly to get rid of bmap, not reimplement it. We can use the > same operation for both cases (fiemap+fibmap), so I honestly don't see which > advantages would be by reimplementing it. Exactly. iomap really is a possibly implementation. Everytime we exposed implementation details at the ops level that created horrible abuses. The most important still relevant example is write_begin/write_end, which require fs specific locking but are exposed in a way where we can't easily enforce that.
