On Monday 14 March 2011 22:11:19 Ted Ts'o wrote: > It wouldn't hurt to have a "flags" field which we could expand later > --- but that can lead to portability headaches for userspace programs > that don't know whether a particular kernel is going to support a > particular flag or not. So it's certainly not a panacea. I think adding an unused flags argument can't hurt. We could be fancy and ignore half the bits but bail out on the other half with -EINVAL. That would make it possible to add both compatible (default being full sync on old kernels) and incompatible (getting rejected on old kernels) flags. Arnd -- 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
