On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:11:47 +0100, Andreas Rohner wrote: > On 2014-01-24 05:56, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:00:28 +0100, Andreas Rohner wrote: >> Do you really need different suinfo update flags per segment ? > > No. > >> If it's not so, we don't have to add nilfs_suinfo_update structure. >> v_flags of nilfs_argv structure looks to be available for that purpose. > > Yes v_flags is available, but I need nilfs_suinfo_update to contain the > segment number. I can't use v_index for the segment number like with > GET_SUINFO, because the segment numbers are not necessarily sequential. Ok, it sounds reasonable. Please go ahead. Ryusuke Konishi > If I use v_index I could effectively only use the ioctl to update one > segment at a time. So I thought, since I need nilfs_suinfo_update > anyway, I might as well put the flags there. But with the extra > alignment it gets a bit ugly, so I tend to agree with you to put the > flags into v_flags now. > > Maybe I missed something, but how would you propose to send the segment > numbers, only using nilfs_suinfo and nilfs_argv? > > It is certainly possible to use v_index of nilfs_argv and update one > segment at a time. It shouldn't be a problem, because there are at most > > #define NILFS_CLDCONFIG_NSEGMENTS_PER_CLEAN_MAX 32 > > segments to be updated. > >> It's just a confirmation. Basically, I think this extension >> is acceptable. > > Cool. Thanks! > > br, > Andreas Rohner > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
