On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:48:10PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:35 PM Olga Kornievskaia > <olga.kornievskaia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So remove the check all together for the VFS (that was my original > > patch to begin with (like #1 not this one). So am I missing the point > > again, I keep getting different corrections every time. > > Because there are different opinions... although you did get the opinion > of the VFS maintainer, which was: compare i_sb->s_type. > > Jeff, Matthew, really, what's the use of "allowing" cross fs type copy inside > filesystem code? and which method is going to be called? > file_out->f_op->copy_file_range()? > file_in->f_op->copy_file_range()? The destination's method, as Olga originally had. > Do we need to check if both are implemented? either? > This is just confusing Olga and gives no real value to anyone. > If we ever have a filesystem copy_file_range() method that can deal > with cross fs type copy, we can change it then when we know the > required semantics of that future call. Wrong. Go back and read my reasoning earlier this thread. > That is not to say that we cannot relax same fs type from copy_file_range() > syscall. That has already been done with the current patch, just not officially > declared in commit message. > > Thanks, > Amir.
