On Tue, Feb 25, 2025, at 11:22, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 09:02:04AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025, at 12:32, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>
>> The ioctl interface relies on the existing behavior, see
>> 0a6eab8bd4e0 ("vfs: support FS_XFLAG_COWEXTSIZE and get/set of
>> CoW extent size hint") for how it was previously extended
>> with an optional flag/word. I think that is fine for the syscall
>> as well, but should be properly documented since it is different
>> from how most syscalls work.
>
> If we're doing a new system call I see no reason to limit us to a
> pre-existing structure or structure layout.
Obviously we could create a new structure, but I also see no
reason to do so. The existing ioctl interface was added in
in 2002 as part of linux-2.5.35 with 16 bytes of padding, half
of which have been used so far.
If this structure works for another 23 years before we run out
of spare bytes, I think that's good enough. Building in an
incompatible way to handle potential future contents would
just make it harder to use for any userspace that wants to
use the new syscalls but still needs a fallback to the
ioctl version.
Arnd
