On Saturday 03 January 2009, Chris Mason wrote: > > > Actually a lot of the ioctl API don't just need documentation but > > a complete redo. That's true at least for the physical device > > management and subvolume / snaphot ones. > > > > The ioctl interface is definitely not finalized. Adding more vs > replacing the existing ones is an open question. As long as that's an open question, the ioctl interface shouldn't get merged into the kernel, or should get in as btrfsdev, otherwise you get stuck with the current ABI forever. Is it possible to separate out the nonstandard ioctls into a patch that can get merged when the interface is final, or will that make btrfs unusable? Arnd <>< -- 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
