On Friday 21 February 2025 13:24:16 Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 05:40:28PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > This change adds support for new struct fileattr fields fsx_xflags_mask, > > fsx_xflags2 and fsx_xflags2_mask into FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR and > > FS_IOC_FSSETXATTR ioctls. > > I don't think I saw an answer to this question (but the discussions of > the mail thread have really sprawled a bit and so it's hard to review > all of the messages in the thread) --- so.... what's your reason for > creating this new fsx_xflags2 field as opposed to just defining new > flags bits for fsx_xflags field? There are plenty of unused bits in > the FS_XFLAG_* space. > > Cheers, > > - Ted > If all bits which I currently defined in fsx_xflags2 should be instead defined in fsx_xflags then in fsx_xflags would be only 2 or 3 free bits. And it is possible that I forgot to include some bits in this RFC series, or that Windows starts (or already started) using some reserved bits. And that would mean that we are out of the fsx_xflags space. Also there are 4-5 Windows get-only bits which are not covered by this RFC series. It is questionable if they should or should not be. So IMHO, we do not have enough space in fsx_xflags to cover everything.
