On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 06:41:08 +1000, Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). > One use case i had was that if the userspace file server can directly work with the returned file system UUID, the it can build the file handle for client in a single call. -aneesh -- 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
