On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 1:38 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 02:12:24PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > Hey, > > > > Some filesystems like kernfs and pidfs support file handles as a > > convenience to enable the use of name_to_handle_at(2) and > > open_by_handle_at(2) but don't want to and cannot be reliably exported. > > Add a flag that allows them to mark their export operations accordingly > > and make NFS check for its presence. > > > > @Amir, I'll reorder the patches such that this series comes prior to the > > pidfs file handle series. Doing it that way will mean that there's never > > a state where pidfs supports file handles while also being exportable. > > It's probably not a big deal but it's definitely cleaner. It also means > > the last patch in this series to mark pidfs as non-exportable can be > > dropped. Instead pidfs export operations will be marked as > > non-exportable in the patch that they are added in. > > Can you please invert the polarity? Marking something as not supporting > is always awkward. Clearly marking it as supporting something (and > writing down in detail what is required for that) is much better, even > it might cause a little more churn initially. > Churn would be a bit annoying, but I guess it makes sense. I agree with Christian that it should be done as cleanup to allow for easier backport. Please suggest a name for this opt-in flag. EXPORT_OP_NFS_EXPORT??? Thanks, Amir.
