On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:58:54 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:42:50 +0530, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Al, > > Any chance of getting this reviewed/merged in the next merge window ? My own opinion of the patchset is that the code itself is fine, however there is one part of the interface that bothers me. I think that it is a little ugly that filesystem uuid extraction is so closely tied to filehandle manipulation. They are certainly related, and we certainly need to be able to get the filesystem uuid directly from the filesystem, but given that filehandle -> fd mapping doesn't (and shouldn't) use the uuid, the fact that fd/name -> filehandle mapping does return the uuid looks like it is simply piggy backing some functionality on the side, rather than creating a properly designed and general interface. I would feel happier about the patches if you removed all reference to uuids and then found some other way to ask a filesystem what its uuid was. This is not an issue that would make be want to stop the patches going upstream, but it does hold me back from offering a reviewed-by or acked-by (for whatever they might be worth). NeilBrown -- 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
