On 11/25/20 3:50 PM, David Howells wrote: > Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> mask=1 bit=0: "attribute not set on this file" >> mask=1 bit=1: "attribute is set on this file" >> mask=0 bit=0: "attribute doesn't fit into the design of this fs" > > Or is "not supported by the filesystem driver in this kernel version". For a concrete example, let's talk about the DAX statx attribute. If the kernel is configured w/o DAX support, should the DAX attr be in the mask? If the block device has no DAX support, should the DAX attr be in the mask? If the filesystem is mounted with dax=never, should the DAX attr be in the mask? About to send a patch for xfs which answers "no" to all of those, but I'm still not quite sure if that's what's expected. I'll be sure to cc: dhowells, Ira, and others who may care... -Eric >> mask=0 bit=1: "filesystem is lying snake" > > I like your phrasing :-) > >> It's up to the fs driver and not the vfs to set attributes_mask, and >> therefore (as I keep pointing out to XiaoLi Feng) xfs_vn_getattr should >> be setting the mask. > > Agreed. I think there's some confusion stemming from STATX_ATTR_MOUNT_ROOT - > but that's supported by the *vfs* not by the filesystem. > > David >
