Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:16:32PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >> Except that there are filesystems that cannot implement such flags, >> or require on-disk format changes to add more of those flags. This >> is most definitely not a filesystem specific behaviour, so any sort >> of VFS level per-file state needs to be kept in xattrs, not special >> flags. Filesystems are welcome to optimise the storage of such >> special xattrs (e.g. down to a single boolean flag in an inode), but >> using a flag for something that dould, in fact, storage the exactly >> offset and length of the corruption is far better than just storing >> a "something is corrupted in this file" bit.... > > Agreed, if we're going to add an xattr, then we might as well store I don't think an xattr makes sense for this. It's sufficient to keep this state in memory. In general these error paths are hard to test and it's important to keep them as simple as possible. Doing IO and other complexities just doesn't make sense. Just have the simplest possible path that can do the job. > not just a boolean, but some indication of what part of the file was You're overdesigning I think. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>