Re: RFC: [PATCH] staging/lustre/llite: fix O_TMPFILE/O_LOV_DELAY_CREATE conflict

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:29:29PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> I can live with that; it's a kludge, but it's less broken than that
> explicit constant - that one is a non-starter, since O_... flag
> values are arch-dependent.

Grabbing their own O_FLAG is of course not acceptable at all.
Personally I don't think this version is acceptable for real mainline
either.  What exactly are the semantics of the flag?  Why don't you do
object allocation on demand like all delalloc filesystems by default?
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux