On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 03:12:25PM +0100, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > I though you were advocating for a solution independent on the file > system. This is ext4 only solution, but I do not really have > anything against this. It would be nice if we could have a fs-independent solution so that we don't have to support the ext4-specific interface forever. If we had the thresholds set in struct super, and the file system were to call a function defined in struct super_operations when the file system has gotten too full, this wouldn't be all that hard. The main issue is what is the proper generic way of notifying userspace. Using a pollable sysfs file is one way, although problem with that is we don't yet have a standardized place to locate where, given a particular mounted file system / block device, where to find its hierarchy in the sysfs tree. Right now we have /sys/fs/<type>/... but that's owned by the file system and so it get's a bit tricky to do something generic. Other solutions might be to report file system full (and file system corruption issues, etc.) via a netlink socket, or if we want to do things in a systemd-complaint way, we could use the kernel-level dbus approach which Greg K-H and company are pushing. :-) - Ted -- 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
