On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:21:21AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > The HSM flag doesn't hurt, and it allows the people actually shipping hsm > > patches to use fiemap without extending the api themselves. Reserving the > > flag isn't a bad idea. > > Here I agree. HSM is a generic enough concept, and I think this > interface's API w.r.t. HSM is well-enough defined that there's no reason > not to go ahead & put it in now, IMHO. But there is no such thing as HSM support anywher near mainline. Call me a dickhead, but I'm 100% against adding anything helping HSM until people get their act together to actually add HSM support. It's something really useful that we should have, and not something that should be in really grotty out of tree codebases. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
