On Mon 19-01-15 01:14:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:13:10AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hum, I'm not sure I follow you. Current kernels will store any 32-bit > > number user sets in flags field. So if we wanted to be 100% safe, we'd have > > to just ignore that field. Which isn't currently a problem since quota code > > doesn't use the field for anything (it was added just for future > > extensions). But since I'm pretty certain noone actually relies on values > > of that field, I though we could just get away with forcibly zeroing the > > field now and if there's a need to use the field in a few years, we could > > start using it. > > Oh, I misread the code and your description. I thought we would just > store any potentially valid in-core flag on disk. > > I guess for now the best case would be to stop storing anything, and > then just make an educated decision if/when we need a flags field. Yes, that's what I do in the patch. So we are in agreement here. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
